With diplomatic relations between India and Pakistan escalating following the Pahalgam terror attack, New Delhi has come down firmly. All visas granted to Pakistani citizens, including medical visas, have been revoked by India and visa services suspended for Pakistanis in their entirety.
In a retaliatory move, Pakistan’s National Security Committee (NSC), chaired by Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, held a rare meeting and announced its intention to put all bilateral agreements with India “in abeyance,” including the historic Simla Agreement. This decision comes amid a rapidly deteriorating relationship between the two nations.
Let us deconstruct what the Simla Agreement is, its historical context, significant clauses, and the manner in which Pakistan has transgressed it in the past.
What Is the Simla Agreement?
The Simla Agreement is a seminal peace treaty executed on July 2, 1972, between Pakistani Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and then Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi. It was executed at Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, after the Indo-Pak war of 1971.
The treaty sought “to bring an end to the conflict and confrontation which have so far complicated their relations and work for the promotion of a friendly and harmonious relationship and for the establishment of lasting peace in the sub-continent.”
The treaty became operative on 4 August 1972 and legalized the Line of Control (LoC) dividing Indian- and Pakistani-occupied portions of Jammu and Kashmir.
Background: 1971 War and Birth of Bangladesh
On December 16, 1971, over 90,000 Pakistani soldiers surrendered in East Pakistan (present-day Bangladesh) after a two-week lightning war waged by India. The war gave birth to Bangladesh and dealt a severe setback to Pakistan’s military establishment.
Prime Minister Indira Gandhi imposed a unilateral ceasefire the next day. “93,000 Pakistani troops surrendered at Dhaka. It was World War 2’s biggest ever military surrender,” historical records have.
Major Terms of the Simla Agreement
Clause 4 of the Simla Agreement is particularly noteworthy. Subsections 1 and 2 of the said clause specify:
“Indian and Pakistani forces shall be withdrawn to their side of the international border.”
“In Jammu and Kashmir, the Line of control determined by the December 17, 1971 cease-fire shall be respected by both parties without prejudice to the recognised position of either party. Neither party shall attempt to change it unilaterally, regardless of differences and interpretations of law. Both parties also undertake not to use or threaten force in derogation of this Line.”
These provisions highlight the significance of adhering to the LoC and desisting from any kind of unilateral modification in its status.
Clause 5 of the agreement further provides that:
“This Agreement will be subject to ratification by both countries in accordance with their respective constitutional procedures, and will come into force with effect from the date on which the Instruments of Ratification are exchanged.”
Karachi Agreement and the LoC
The Simla Agreement of 1972 further developed the precedent set by the previous 1949 Karachi Agreement, a UN-facilitated ceasefire agreement between Indian and Pakistani military envoys. It established the ceasefire line along Jammu and Kashmir, its extension from Manawar to the north Glacier areas.
The demarcation subsequently developed into the present Line of Control.
How Pakistan Has Violated the Simla Agreement
Notwithstanding the explicit provisions of the Simla Agreement, Pakistan has consistently disobeyed its terms—most prominently in the following instances:
1. Siachen Glacier (1984)
The 1949 Karachi Agreement expressly stated that the ceasefire line reached to the north up to the glaciers. However, Pakistan in the early 1980s tried to exercise authority over the Siachen Glacier, which fell within Indian territory as per both the Karachi and Simla Agreements.
India, in retaliation, initiated Operation Meghdoot in 1984 and captured the glacier completely. To date, Siachen is still the world’s highest active military outpost, jointly occupied by the Indian Army and Air Force.
2. Kargil War (1999)
In another outright transgression, Pakistani troops infiltrated across the LoC in 1999 and captured key locations on high grounds at Kargil, looking over National Highway-1. The penetration was a transparent disregard for the Simla Agreement’s provisions barring any unilateral modifications in the LoC.
The battle was resolved when India reasserted its claims on all occupied ground. Though confined in extent, the war took serious losses of lives and only weakened the relationship further.
Ceasefire Violations After Kargil
Following the Kargil war, India and Pakistan had a ceasefire along the LoC in 2003. There were no ceasefire violations from 2003 to 2006. But since 2006, Pakistan resumed cross-border firing and attempts at infiltration.
Diplomatic Implications of the Latest Step
Pakistan’s latest move to suspend the Simla Agreement has raised serious doubts about the future of diplomatic practices between the two countries. The Simla Agreement forms the basis of all post-1971 bilateral negotiations and peace initiatives. To suspend it might destabilize established mechanisms of dialogue and conflict resolution.
If Pakistan were to abrogate the treaty formally, it might question the legitimacy of the LoC itself, which has been the de facto boundary and a standard point of reference for military encounters over the years.
The Simla Agreement was not just a peace treaty—it was a diplomatic platform for post-war South Asia. Its provisions were geared to foster peaceful coexistence, but several violations by Pakistan during the years have undermined its validity.
With increased tensions once again after the Pahalgam terror attack, Pakistan’s announcement to suspend the agreement provides a further twist to the already fragile India-Pakistan relationship.
Whether Islamabad officially abandons the Simla Agreement or employs it as a bargaining tool is yet to be seen. Yet, the pattern of history indicates that ignoring treaties has tended to create more intense conflicts, not peace.
