Why Did Pakistan Suspend the Simla Agreement — And What Could It Mean for Peace in South Asia?

In a dramatic and deeply consequential move, Pakistan has announced the suspension of the 1972 Simla Agreement, a landmark peace accord that has, for over five decades, served as a foundational framework guiding relations between India and Pakistan. This decision, taken on April 24, 2025, comes in direct response to recent political and military developments—particularly India's tough diplomatic stance following a tragic terrorist attack in Pahalgam, Jammu and Kashmir. The attack, which claimed the lives of 26 innocent tourists, triggered a nationwide outpouring of grief and anger in India. In the aftermath, New Delhi hinted at reviewing key bilateral agreements with Islamabad, including its commitment to share river waters under the Indus Waters Treaty. Pakistan, interpreting this as an act of aggression and a significant diplomatic slight, retaliated by “pausing” the Simla Pact, a move many experts see as both symbolic and potentially destabilizing.

To understand the gravity of this decision, one must go back to the origins of the Simla Agreement, which was signed on July 2, 1972, in the scenic hill town of Shimla, Himachal Pradesh. It followed the historic 1971 war between India and Pakistan—a war that not only resulted in a humiliating defeat for Pakistan but also led to the creation of Bangladesh from what was previously East Pakistan. The treaty was a major diplomatic milestone, signed by then Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi and Pakistani President Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. It was intended to restore peace and lay the foundation for a more stable and cooperative relationship in South Asia. The agreement emphasized the importance of resolving disputes through peaceful, bilateral negotiations, without the involvement of third-party mediators. This principle, in particular, has been central to India’s long-standing foreign policy approach—especially regarding Kashmir—where India has consistently opposed any foreign or international intervention.

One of the most critical features of the Simla Agreement was its role in formally converting the ceasefire line established during the 1971 war into what we now know as the Line of Control (LoC). This became a de facto border in the disputed region of Jammu and Kashmir. Both countries agreed not to alter this line unilaterally, thereby reducing the likelihood of sudden military escalations. Furthermore, India’s gesture of returning over 13,000 square kilometers of captured territory after the war, despite its clear military advantage, was seen as a sign of commitment to peace and reconciliation. The agreement also laid down mutual pledges to respect each other’s territorial sovereignty, refrain from the use or threat of force, and uphold non-interference in internal affairs—principles that were intended to guide all future bilateral interactions.

However, by suspending the agreement now, Pakistan appears to be sending a strong diplomatic signal that it is no longer bound by these bilateral commitments. Analysts fear this could open the door for Pakistan to pursue international intervention in the Kashmir conflict—potentially involving global players like the United Nations, China, or the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC). Such a move would directly violate the bilateral dispute resolution principle enshrined in the Simla Agreement and could draw severe criticism from New Delhi. In recent years, especially after India’s abrogation of Article 370 in August 2019, which revoked Jammu and Kashmir’s special constitutional status, diplomatic ties between the two nations have deteriorated sharply. Pakistan has used every international platform available to raise the Kashmir issue, despite India's firm stance that all such matters must be resolved bilaterally.

The suspension of the Simla Agreement, while currently symbolic in nature, carries serious long-term implications. The LoC, which has frequently been a flashpoint for skirmishes and military standoffs, could now be more vulnerable to violations and instability. Without a binding agreement to respect its sanctity, the risk of escalation—from infiltration attempts to cross-border shelling—could rise dramatically. Both sides have invested heavily in defense infrastructure along the LoC, and the absence of a mutually agreed framework could invite miscalculations and unintended consequences.

Moreover, Pakistan's move is seen by some observers as a strategic gamble. By rejecting the existing framework, Islamabad may be attempting to shift the narrative, reposition itself on the international stage, and gain diplomatic leverage—especially as India has begun reviewing other treaties, such as the Indus Waters Treaty. Calling India's decision to potentially restrict water access an “act of war,” Pakistan’s move to suspend the Simla Agreement seems designed to apply counter-pressure. However, such tit-for-tat actions may undermine the fragile regional stability and diminish the possibility of returning to the negotiating table anytime soon.

At present, India has not officially responded to Pakistan’s announcement. But given the seriousness of the situation and the historical importance of the Simla Agreement, experts believe New Delhi will likely reaffirm its commitment to bilateral dispute resolution while simultaneously preparing for the possibility of heightened tensions along the border. The international community, too, is closely monitoring the situation, as both India and Pakistan are nuclear-armed nations whose rivalry has already led to several full-scale wars and continuous military tensions over the decades.

Ultimately, the suspension of the Simla Agreement marks a potentially dangerous turning point in South Asian geopolitics. If not addressed diplomatically and responsibly, it could dismantle decades of conflict management mechanisms and push the region closer to renewed instability. While the consequences of this move may not be immediate in terms of military confrontation, the erosion of trust and diplomatic norms that it represents is deeply concerning—and could make future peace-building efforts significantly more difficult.