In the complex tapestry of South Asian geopolitics, few agreements have held as much symbolic and strategic weight as the Simla Agreement of 1972. Signed in the aftermath of the 1971 Indo-Pak war—an event that not only redrew the map of the subcontinent with the birth of Bangladesh but also reshaped regional power dynamics—the Simla Agreement was envisioned as a framework for peace, coexistence, and bilateral resolution of disputes. Over five decades later, its relevance is once again under scrutiny, as Pakistan signals a suspension of the accord amidst renewed tensions.
Source: The Asia Times
This article revisits the origins, core provisions, criticisms, and the evolving significance of the Simla Agreement, particularly in the context of the ever-changing geopolitical landscape and diplomatic standoffs. Recent developments suggest that Pakistan’s move to distance itself from the agreement may inadvertently offer India strategic flexibility in redefining its regional posture, highlighting the dynamic nature of geopolitical strategies.
A Treaty Born from War: The Historical Context
The signing of the Simla Agreement on July 2, 1972, was not merely a diplomatic exercise but a necessity shaped by the dramatic consequences of the 1971 war. India, under Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, emerged victorious, facilitating the creation of Bangladesh and capturing over 93,000 Pakistani prisoners of war (POWs). Pakistan, led by Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, faced territorial losses, political humiliation, and internal instability.
Amidst this volatile backdrop, the Simla talks—supported by Soviet diplomatic engagement—were convened to chart a new post-war order. The agreement aimed to restore communication channels, define military withdrawals, and establish a framework for peaceful bilateral relations. Significantly, it marked Pakistan’s first formal recognition of Bangladesh’s sovereignty within a bilateral treaty.
Key Provisions: A Commitment to Bilateralism and Peace
At its core, the Simla Agreement was anchored in six guiding principles: adherence to the UN Charter, peaceful settlement of disputes through bilateral negotiations, respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity, non-interference in internal affairs, renunciation of force, and restoration of economic and cultural ties.
Source: Jagran Josh
One of the most consequential outcomes was the formalization of the Line of Control (LoC) in Jammu and Kashmir, based on the ceasefire line of December 1971. Both nations pledged neither to alter this line unilaterally nor to engage in actions detrimental to peaceful relations. However, the agreement deliberately avoided converting the LoC into an international boundary—a decision that drew criticism within India for being overly cautious despite its military leverage.
While the accord outlined steps towards normalization, including trade and communication, it ultimately embedded aspirational principles rather than enforceable commitments, leaving its durability dependent on political will.
Criticism and Breaches: The Fragility of Diplomatic Frameworks
The subsequent decades exposed the structural weaknesses of the Simla Agreement. Pakistan’s consistent violations—supporting insurgency in Kashmir, repeated ceasefire breaches, and initiating the Kargil conflict in 1999—undermined its foundational promise of peaceful bilateralism. Simultaneously, Pakistan’s efforts to internationalize the Kashmir dispute stood in direct contradiction to the bilateral resolution mechanism agreed upon at Simla.
India’s internal political decisions, particularly the abrogation of Article 370, became additional points of contention, with Pakistan accusing New Delhi of altering the status quo. However, these were framed by India as sovereign matters, beyond the remit of the agreement.
Analysts such as Avtar Singh Bhasin have argued that the Simla Agreement was primarily designed for immediate post-war stabilization—focusing on issues like POW repatriation—while clauses on Kashmir were largely symbolic. Over time, the accord evolved into a diplomatic artifact, cited in rhetoric but rarely reflected in practice.
The Simla Agreement Today: A Framework in Decline and Strategic Transition
Pakistan’s 2025 announcement to place the Simla Agreement “in abeyance,” following India’s suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty, signals a definitive shift away from legacy diplomatic frameworks. While this move raises concerns regarding escalating tensions, it simultaneously alters the strategic landscape in India’s favour.
Source: Drishti Pictorial
For decades, India adhered to the principles of bilateral resolution, even as Pakistan undermined them through proxy conflicts and appeals to international forums. With Pakistan formally discarding this commitment, India is no longer bound by diplomatic restraints that had, in effect, already been rendered obsolete. This development offers New Delhi greater flexibility to assert its position on critical issues such as Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK) and to engage on global platforms without deference to outdated protocols.
The erosion of the LoC’s diplomatic sanctity, prompted by Pakistan’s own posture, further enables India to recalibrate its security and territorial strategies. This shift coincides with India’s broader foreign policy evolution—marked by strategic autonomy, deeper global partnerships, and proactive regional engagement. Initiatives such as the Act East Policy and India’s growing role in global governance forums reflect a departure from defensive diplomacy towards a more assertive, self-defined strategic orientation.
The suspension of the Simla Agreement complements this trajectory, allowing India to align its policies with contemporary geopolitical realities rather than legacy accords that no longer serve its interests.
International Law and Diplomatic Realities
The decline of the Simla Agreement underscores a fundamental limitation within international diplomacy: treaties devoid of enforcement mechanisms are only as strong as the mutual political will sustaining them. The absence of a dispute resolution framework within Simla made it vulnerable to erosion once trust dissipated.
While the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969) provides guidelines for suspension or termination, the effectiveness of such instruments remains constrained when sovereign states prioritize strategic interests over legal obligations. In this context, India’s consistent adherence to international norms—contrasted with Pakistan’s selective engagement—has bolstered New Delhi’s global standing as a responsible actor committed to stability.
Source: OpIndia
Conclusion: Navigating Beyond Simla
The Simla Agreement stands as both a relic of post-war diplomacy and a reflection of South Asia’s enduring struggle between dialogue and conflict. Its gradual irrelevance, shaped by decades of violations, shifting geopolitical priorities, and changing domestic landscapes, marks the collapse of a framework that no longer aligns with regional realities.
Pakistan’s suspension of the accord formalizes what had long been evident. Yet, within this diplomatic void lies a critical opportunity for India. Unbound by bilateral constraints, New Delhi can pursue a more assertive and autonomous regional strategy—reaffirming territorial claims, reinforcing security architecture, and engaging with the international community on terms defined by contemporary challenges.
This moment, however, demands careful calibration. While flexibility offers strategic advantage, it also places responsibility on India to maintain its role as a stabilizing force in South Asia. Balancing assertiveness with diplomatic prudence will be essential in shaping a regional order conducive to long-term security and development.
The legacy of the Simla Agreement extends beyond its text. It serves as a reminder that durable peace cannot rest on symbolic commitments alone. It requires sustained political resolve, respect for agreed norms, and a recognition that diplomacy, though fragile, remains preferable to conflict.
As South Asia enters a new phase of geopolitical uncertainty, India’s ability to lead with clarity, strength, and foresight will determine its position—not only as a regional power but as a decisive force in global affairs.
References
Ministry of External Affairs. (1972). Simla Agreement. Government of India. Retrieved from https://www.mea.gov.in/Portal/LegalTreatiesDoc/PA72B1578.pdf
The Hindu. (2025, April 25). What’s the reason for targeting Simla Agreement? Retrieved from https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/whats-the-reason-for-targeting-simla-agreement-explained/article68045797.ece
Indian Express. (2025, April 25). Indus Waters Treaty, Simla Agreement ‘in abeyance’: What this means. Retrieved from https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/explained-law/indus-waters-treaty-simla-agreement-in-abeyance-what-this-means-9966366/
Times of India. (2025, April 24). Pakistan suspends 1972 Simla Agreement: What will be the impact on LoC? Retrieved from https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/pakistan-suspends-1972-simla-agreement-what-is-it-and-what-will-be-the-impact-on-loc/articleshow/120584779.cms
NDTV. (2025, April 24). Pakistan flag removed from desk in Himachal Raj Bhawan where 1972 Simla Agreement was signed after Pahalgam terror attack. Retrieved from https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/pakistan-flag-removed-from-desk-in-himachal-raj-bhawan-where-1972-simla-agreement-was-signed-after-pahalgam-terror-attack-8260206
Firstpost. (2025, April 24). Advantage India as Pakistan puts Simla Agreement on hold: 3 big moves New Delhi can make. Retrieved from https://www.firstpost.com/world/advantage-india-as-pakistan-puts-simla-agreement-on-hold-3-big-moves-new-delhi-can-make-13882881.html
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. (1969). United Nations Treaty Series, vol. 1155, p. 331. Retrieved from https://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/1_1_1969.pdf
About the Author– Riya Rawat is a researcher at the Impact and Policy Research Institute (IMPRI), pursuing a second master’s degree in Political Science. With a strong background in public policy, gender studies, and international relations, her research interests focus on policy development, analysis, and global affairs.
Acknowledgement– The author extends sincere gratitude to Dr. Arjun Kumar and Aasthaba Jadeja for their invaluable guidance and support.
Disclaimer: All views expressed in the article belong solely to the author and not necessarily to the organisation.
Read more at IMPRI:
West Asian Leaders and Organizations Denounce Terrorist Attack in Pahalgam, Jammu & Kashmir
Terror in Kashmir, Global turmoil: A week of instability
