The wounds of the recent Pahalgam terrorist attack were still raw when India decided to strike diplomatically. In a strong and decisive move, India announced the suspension of the Indus Water Treaty with Pakistan and severed diplomatic ties, signalling its intent to respond firmly to the brutal killing of 26 tourists by Islamist terrorists in Jammu and Kashmir’s Pahalgam.
As expected, Pakistan quickly retaliated, albeit diplomatically. On April 24, after an emergency meeting of Pakistan’s National Security Committee (NSC) chaired by Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, Pakistan issued a statement saying it would exercise its “right” to hold all bilateral agreements with India in abeyance, including the historic Simla Agreement of 1972.
“Pakistan shall exercise the right to hold all bilateral agreements with India, including but not limited to the Shimla Agreement, in abeyance. All cross-border transit from India through this route shall be suspended, without exception. Those who have crossed with valid endorsements may return through that route immediately, but not later than April 30,” read the statement.
While India intensified its security operations along the Line of Control (LoC) and across Jammu and Kashmir to flush out terrorists, Pakistan’s sudden announcement raised serious questions: What exactly is the Simla Agreement? Why is its suspension significant? And what could it mean for the already fragile relationship between the two neighbours?
The Simla Agreement: A treaty born out of war
To understand the importance of Pakistan’s move, it’s essential to revisit the context in which the Simla Agreement was signed.
In 1971, Pakistan suffered a crushing defeat in the Bangladesh Liberation War. The Indian Army, supporting the Mukti Bahini (the Bangladeshi freedom fighters), forced nearly 93,000 Pakistani soldiers to surrender — the largest such surrender since World War II.
Following the war, India and Pakistan sat down to chart a way forward, resulting in the signing of the Simla Agreement on July 2, 1972, between India’s Prime Minister Indira Gandhi and Pakistan’s President Zulfikar Ali Bhutto.
The purpose of the Simla Agreement was to lay down a framework for peaceful relations between the two countries. It emphasised a mutual commitment to resolve differences bilaterally without resorting to conflict or seeking third-party mediation.
The very first paragraph of the agreement reads:
“The Government of India and the Government of Pakistan are resolved that the two countries put an end to the conflict and confrontation that have hitherto marred their relations and work for the promotion of a friendly and harmonious relationship and the establishment of durable peace in the sub-continent…”
In short, the Simla Agreement was a commitment to peace, dialogue, and mutual respect. It also made an important point: that India and Pakistan would resolve their issues without internationalising their disputes, a clause that India has often invoked whenever Pakistan tried to internationalise the Kashmir issue at forums like the United Nations.
Recognition of the Line of Control (LoC)
Perhaps one of the most critical outcomes of the Simla Agreement was the formal recognition of the Line of Control (LoC) in Jammu and Kashmir.
Clause 4 of the agreement stated:
“In Jammu and Kashmir, the line of control resulting from the cease-fire of December 17, 1971, shall be respected by both sides without prejudice to the recognised position of either side. Neither side shall seek to alter it unilaterally, irrespective of mutual differences and legal interpretations.”
Prior to this, the boundary was referred to as the “Ceasefire Line,” established after the first Indo-Pak war in 1947-48 under UN supervision. By renaming it the Line of Control and agreeing to respect it, both India and Pakistan implicitly accepted a de facto boundary, even if they did not agree on a final resolution to the Kashmir issue.
Moreover, the agreement required that troops from both sides withdraw to their respective territories within 30 days, further establishing a semblance of normalcy.
Pakistan’s history of violating the Simla agreement
While the Simla Agreement held out hope for a peaceful future, the reality has been quite different. Pakistan has repeatedly violated the spirit and often the letter of the agreement.
The most glaring example was the Kargil War of 1999. In clear violation of the Simla Agreement, Pakistani soldiers and militants infiltrated Indian positions across the LoC in Jammu and Kashmir’s Kargil sector. The conflict led to hundreds of deaths on both sides before India successfully pushed back the intruders.
Similarly, Pakistan’s long-standing support for cross-border terrorism has also been a blatant violation. Armed terrorists trained in Pakistan have regularly crossed the LoC to target Indian security forces and civilians in Jammu and Kashmir.
In this light, Pakistan’s latest announcement to suspend the Simla Agreement seems less like a principled stand and more like an attempt to justify actions it has been engaging in unofficially for decades.
What does suspension of the Simla agreement mean?
If Pakistan formally suspends the Simla Agreement, the consequences could be grave.
First, by disowning the Simla Agreement, Pakistan would essentially erase the foundation for peaceful bilateral dialogue. The very principle that disputes should be resolved bilaterally would be undermined. Pakistan might again seek third-party intervention, something India has always opposed.
Second, and more dangerously, the LoC’s status could be challenged. Without the Simla Agreement, there would be no bilateral understanding to respect the current boundary. This could embolden Pakistan to step up its military activities across the LoC, risking direct military confrontation.
Third, suspension would further deteriorate diplomatic relations between the two nations. Without the Simla framework, the few remaining channels of communication could break down entirely, making conflict resolution even harder.
Finally, Pakistan’s actions might backfire on the global stage. Internationally, the Simla Agreement is often cited as the governing document for India-Pakistan relations, especially on Kashmir. By abandoning it, Pakistan might lose credibility and face accusations of reneging on past commitments.
Why this move reflects Pakistan’s desperation
Pakistan’s decision to suspend the Simla Agreement can also be seen as a move born of desperation.
Following the Pahalgam attack, India’s diplomatic offensive has isolated Pakistan further. Already struggling with economic crises, facing internal instability, and losing support even among its traditional allies, Pakistan finds itself cornered.
Suspending the Simla Agreement could be a tactic to provoke India into a military response, thereby internationalising the issue of Kashmir again. It could also be an attempt to appease hardliners within Pakistan who demand aggressive retaliation against India.
However, it’s a high-risk strategy. Given India’s strong diplomatic standing and military preparedness, any escalation would likely hurt Pakistan far more than it would hurt India.
A dangerous game with unpredictable outcomes
The Simla Agreement was an agreement born of bloodshed, but aimed at peace. By threatening to suspend it, Pakistan risks plunging its relationship with India into even deeper darkness.
At a time when the world faces multiple crises, from economic slowdowns to conflicts in various parts of the globe, the last thing South Asia needs is another full-blown India-Pakistan crisis. Yet Pakistan’s reckless decision to abandon one of the few existing frameworks for peace shows how deeply entrenched extremism and instability have become in its polity.
As India continues its hunt for the perpetrators of the Pahalgam attack and strengthens its defences along the LoC, the world will be watching closely. Whether Pakistan’s gamble pays off or leads to greater isolation remains to be seen. But one thing is certain: by threatening the very foundation of Indo-Pak relations, Pakistan has embarked on a dangerous path whose consequences it may not be able to control.
Comments