New Delhi:
India and Pakistan signed the Simla Agreement, also spelt the Shimla Agreement, on July 2, 1972, seeking to reverse the consequences of the 1971 war. A comprehensive blueprint for good neighbourly relations between India and Pakistan, the pact validates the Line of Control in Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh.
However, since the time the agreement was signed by then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi and Pakistan President Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, there has been a constant debate regarding the interpretation of the deal.
According to Pakistan, the Kashmir dispute should be settled based on various United Nations resolutions. India states the Shimla Agreement explicitly provides for a bilateral resolution of all disputes between the parties, making any other approach inappropriate.
However, this is not the whole picture.
While treaties are defined according to their texts, one should look at how the states that concluded the treaties act, adhering to their principles. As for Pakistan, cross-border terrorism and information warfare of the country have damaged more than particular provisions of the Shimla Agreement. They have gradually eroded the foundation of the whole agreement.
The Shimla Agreement did not envisage just the resolution of the disputes in a bilateral way. In addition to this, both parties agreed to undertake certain obligations in order to develop peaceful relations. Thus, they pledged to refrain from any activity within their territory that may be detrimental to peaceful relations. They also committed to discouraging propaganda and fostering the exchange of information that promotes friendly relations.
The obligations above were necessary to restore confidence between the countries after the 14-day war in 1971.
Unfortunately, during the past few decades, the conduct of Pakistan has taken the exact opposite way.
Terrorism
Lashkar-e-Taiba, which was behind the 2008 Mumbai attacks, is a Pakistan-based terrorist organisation. It is listed as a terrorist organisation by the United Nations Security Council.
Another terrorist group, Jaish-e-Mohammed, is based in Pakistan.
Pakistan was also blacklisted by the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), the global body that sets standards for combating money laundering and terrorist financing, for four years from 2018 to 2022 for its inefficiency in dealing with terror financing.
On April 22, 2025, terrorists of The Resistance Front, which is considered a proxy of Lashkar-e-Taiba, opened fire on tourists in Jammu and Kashmir’s Pahalgam, killing 26 civilians.
The United States declared the organisation a terrorist group, while India’s anti-terror agency, the National Investigation Agency (NIA), found out that the conspiracy was prepared across the border.
In response, India launched Operation Sindoor in May 2025, attacking multiple terror camps in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK).
Pakistan then flooded social media with fake news, alleging the shooting down of Indian fighter jets and cyberattacks of the power grid, as well as attacks on religious sites.
India found that over 1,400 such URLs were from Pakistan.
Such actions are contrary to the Shimla Agreement, according to which India and Pakistan committed to discourage any form of propaganda that would damage relations and foster the exchange of information that would promote good relations.
Kashmir Issue
There is another contradiction that becomes evident when Pakistan tries to internationalise the issue of Kashmir. When Pakistan relies on the Shimla Agreement as an example of bilateral relations, the country constantly conducts diplomacy based on the involvement of the United Nations.
For instance, Islamabad organised the UN Security Council Arria-formula meeting in January and wrote to the council. This is selective implementation rather than full commitment.
Against this background, India’s move to suspend the operation of the Indus Waters Treaty after the Pahalgam terror attack until Pakistan stops its support of cross-border terrorism can be considered an implementation of a certain principle that is the following: cooperation cannot be separated from the responsibility stipulated by treaties.
No country can hope to enjoy the advantages of cooperation if it continuously violates the conditions necessary for this cooperation.
Water, dialogue and other kinds of cooperation cannot exist independently from security.
More than 50 years after the signing of the Shimla Agreement, one has to admit that the issue is no longer related to competing interpretations of its provisions. The real issue is about the conduct.
The Pak-linked terrorist attacks and the constant disinformation campaigns damaged the Shimla Agreement more than any legal argument that could be provided by either party in international forums.
If the Shimla Agreement has become meaningless, it is not due to the arguments about the provisions but because Pakistan has consistently violated the spirit of the pact.
