What stood out in Pakistan’s list of countermeasures against India’s Pahalgam offensive was its decision to put on hold the iconic 1972 Simla Agreement , along with all other bilateral agreements. Attempting a tit-for-tat over the suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty a day earlier by India, Pakistan announced that it will exercise the right to hold the agreements in abeyance till India desists from “its manifested behaviour of fomenting terrorism inside Pakistan; trans-national killings; and non-adherence to international law and UN Resolutions on Kashmir”.
Signed in July 1972 between then PM Indira Gandhi and President Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, after Pakistan’s comprehensive defeat in the Bangladesh war, the agreement was expected to lay the foundation of a peaceful and stable relationship between the 2 countries. Importantly for India, it stressed the importance of bilateralism and use of peaceful means in resolving disputes and differences, superseding the UN resolutions on Kashmir that Pakistan again referred to, while also underlining the sanctity of the Line of Control (LOC).
The fact there has been only 1 limited war in Kargil since the agreement, unlike the 3 wars that preceded it, could perhaps be cited in favour of the usefulness of the agreement. However, as far as India is concerned now, Pakistan showed little respect for the agreement as it worked overtime to internationalize the Kashmir issue, particularly after the special status of J&K was revoked in 2019, and promoted cross-border terrorism . Precluding any external intervention, particularly by major powers like the US in the Kashmir dispute , was an important element of India’s foreign policy then, as it continues to be now. Both sides also committed to non-interference in each other’s internal affairs in the agreement.
According to former diplomat Syed Akbaruddin, Pakistan’s announcement signals that the agreement to address bilateral differences peacefully is no longer being considered by Pakistan as a binding commitment. “It opens up the validity of the LoC which both sides have abided by since 1971. As a corollary, it may free each side of the commitment not to unilaterally alter the LoC irrespective of differences and legal interpretations,’’ says Akbaruddin, who served in Pakistan from 1998 to 2000.
According to the Simla Agreement, the LoC resulting from the ceasefire of December 1971 had to be respected by both sides “without prejudice” to the recognized positions of either side. “Neither side shall seek to alter it unilaterally, irrespective of mutual differences and legal interpretations. Both sides further undertake to refrain from the threat or the use of force in violation of this Line,’’ it said.
Ironically, any move away from bilateralism by Pakistan can also serve the interests of those in India who want the PoK issue settled militarily. If Pakistan doesn’t commit to abiding by any peaceful resolution achieved bilaterally, there won’t be restraints on India too. The Modi government, however, has officially underscored the principle of resolving disputes through bilateral negotiations and in 2015, it insisted on calling a short-lived dialogue mechanism comprehensive bilateral dialogue instead of just comprehensive dialogue, to preclude the possibility of any third-party mediation.
As former Indian high commissioner to Pakistan Ajay Bisaria notes in his book Anger Management, after raising the prospects of an eventual settlement of the Kashmir dispute in the Simla negotiations, Bhutto quickly retracted his position. Only a year later, in 1973, as Pakistan’s new PM under a new Constitution, Bhutto started to talk about waging a 1000-year-old war with India. “By mid-1974, neither Bhutto nor Indira Gandhi had the political will or capital to forge a lasting settlement,’’ says Bisaria.
Signed in July 1972 between then PM Indira Gandhi and President Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, after Pakistan’s comprehensive defeat in the Bangladesh war, the agreement was expected to lay the foundation of a peaceful and stable relationship between the 2 countries. Importantly for India, it stressed the importance of bilateralism and use of peaceful means in resolving disputes and differences, superseding the UN resolutions on Kashmir that Pakistan again referred to, while also underlining the sanctity of the Line of Control (LOC).
The fact there has been only 1 limited war in Kargil since the agreement, unlike the 3 wars that preceded it, could perhaps be cited in favour of the usefulness of the agreement. However, as far as India is concerned now, Pakistan showed little respect for the agreement as it worked overtime to internationalize the Kashmir issue, particularly after the special status of J&K was revoked in 2019, and promoted cross-border terrorism . Precluding any external intervention, particularly by major powers like the US in the Kashmir dispute , was an important element of India’s foreign policy then, as it continues to be now. Both sides also committed to non-interference in each other’s internal affairs in the agreement.
According to former diplomat Syed Akbaruddin, Pakistan’s announcement signals that the agreement to address bilateral differences peacefully is no longer being considered by Pakistan as a binding commitment. “It opens up the validity of the LoC which both sides have abided by since 1971. As a corollary, it may free each side of the commitment not to unilaterally alter the LoC irrespective of differences and legal interpretations,’’ says Akbaruddin, who served in Pakistan from 1998 to 2000.
According to the Simla Agreement, the LoC resulting from the ceasefire of December 1971 had to be respected by both sides “without prejudice” to the recognized positions of either side. “Neither side shall seek to alter it unilaterally, irrespective of mutual differences and legal interpretations. Both sides further undertake to refrain from the threat or the use of force in violation of this Line,’’ it said.
Ironically, any move away from bilateralism by Pakistan can also serve the interests of those in India who want the PoK issue settled militarily. If Pakistan doesn’t commit to abiding by any peaceful resolution achieved bilaterally, there won’t be restraints on India too. The Modi government, however, has officially underscored the principle of resolving disputes through bilateral negotiations and in 2015, it insisted on calling a short-lived dialogue mechanism comprehensive bilateral dialogue instead of just comprehensive dialogue, to preclude the possibility of any third-party mediation.
As former Indian high commissioner to Pakistan Ajay Bisaria notes in his book Anger Management, after raising the prospects of an eventual settlement of the Kashmir dispute in the Simla negotiations, Bhutto quickly retracted his position. Only a year later, in 1973, as Pakistan’s new PM under a new Constitution, Bhutto started to talk about waging a 1000-year-old war with India. “By mid-1974, neither Bhutto nor Indira Gandhi had the political will or capital to forge a lasting settlement,’’ says Bisaria.
