In a dramatic escalation of diplomatic hostilities, Pakistan has suspended the historic Simla Agreement of 1972, a cornerstone pact signed with India in the aftermath of the 1971 war that saw the birth of Bangladesh. This move comes just days after the devastating terror attack in Jammu and Kashmir’s Pahalgam, which claimed 28 lives and pushed India to take strong retaliatory steps, including suspending the Indus Waters Treaty. Pakistan, in turn, announced it would put all bilateral agreements with India, including the Simla Agreement, “in abeyance” until what it termed India’s “manifested behaviour” is reversed.
A Legacy of War and Peace
The Simla Agreement, signed on July 2, 1972, between then Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi and Pakistan’s President Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, was conceived in the charged aftermath of the 1971 war. That war ended with a humiliating defeat for Pakistan, the secession of East Pakistan, and the creation of Bangladesh. Amid widespread political upheaval and military collapse, over 90,000 Pakistani soldiers surrendered to Indian forces in what remains one of the most lopsided military outcomes in the region’s history.
The agreement was designed to be a turning point. Not merely a ceasefire pact, it envisioned a broader transformation of India-Pakistan relations. It outlined a framework that would promote peace and cooperation, committing both countries to resolving disputes bilaterally and peacefully. Central to the Simla Agreement was the pledge not to unilaterally alter the Line of Control (LoC) in Jammu and Kashmir, the de facto border that had emerged after the war.
India, in an act of strategic magnanimity, returned over 13,000 square kilometres of captured Pakistani territory while retaining key strategic zones in Ladakh’s Turtuk and Chalunka areas. The move was widely seen as a goodwill gesture aimed at stabilising the subcontinent and establishing India’s role as a responsible regional power.
Why the Simla Agreement Still Matters
Though short, just six paragraphs in length, the Simla Agreement carried long-lasting significance. It was based on mutual respect for each other’s sovereignty and a clear rejection of force as a tool to settle disputes. By rooting the bilateral relationship within the framework of the UN Charter, it implicitly acknowledged international norms while still insisting that India and Pakistan solve issues without third-party mediation.
The accord also helped codify the LoC as a line not to be crossed, irrespective of political differences or legal interpretations. That principle was meant to avoid confrontations and maintain a delicate peace in Kashmir. However, Pakistan has violated this understanding more than once, most notably during the Kargil War in 1999 when its military attempted to alter the LoC through infiltration, leading to a bloody conflict.
Despite its flaws and breaches, the Simla Agreement has survived for over five decades. Its endurance lay in the belief that however strained ties may become, dialogue, even if frozen, was still rooted in a shared commitment to peace.
The Fallout of a Suspension
Pakistan’s decision to suspend the Simla Agreement, framed as a response to Indian “aggression”, marks a sharp departure from that decades-old commitment. The timing is significant. Just days ago, terrorists struck in Pahalgam, a tourist town dubbed ‘mini Switzerland’, in a coordinated assault that left dozens dead. The Resistance Front (TRF), a proxy for the banned Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) group, claimed responsibility. India responded with hard-hitting measures, diplomatically isolating Islamabad and suspending the Indus Waters Treaty, which governs the sharing of rivers between the two nations.
Now, with both countries abandoning foundational agreements, a deep chill has set in. The implications are serious. The sanctity of the LoC, always fragile, could be further undermined. The very idea of bilateralism, which India has championed and the Simla Agreement enshrined, is now on uncertain ground. And while this is not the first time Pakistan has stepped away from its commitments, Kargil remains a case in point, the formal declaration of suspension adds an unpredictable layer to an already volatile dynamic.
In the current climate, where terror attacks and retaliatory steps define the tone of engagement, the collapse of diplomatic frameworks such as the Simla Agreement signals a dangerous unraveling. It may not lead to immediate conflict, but it certainly removes one more safety net that has helped prevent worse in the past.
