Pakistan’s abrupt decision to suspend the 1972 Shimla Agreement, in retaliation for India’s suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty, is a grave miscalculation that undermines its own security and plays into India’s hands. This reckless move, prompted by India’s response to the horrific Pahalgam terror attack that killed 26 people, exposes Pakistan’s strategic vulnerabilities and risks escalating tensions in a region already on edge. Far from strengthening its position, Pakistan has scored a self-goal, dismantling a critical diplomatic framework and leaving itself exposed to India’s superior military and geopolitical leverage.
The Shimla Agreement, signed by Indira Gandhi and Zulfikar Ali Bhutto after India’s decisive victory in the 1971 Indo-Pakistani War, was a cornerstone of peace between two adversarial nations. It established the Line of Control (LoC) in Kashmir, mandated bilateral dialogue to resolve disputes, and prohibited unilateral actions to alter the status quo. India’s magnanimity was evident in its return of over 13,000 km² of captured territory, a gesture of goodwill that underscored its commitment to stability. For over five decades, the agreement has served as a vital restraint against all-out conflict, despite Pakistan’s occasional violations, such as the 1999 Kargil War.
India’s decision to hold the Indus Waters Treaty in abeyance was a calibrated response to the Pahalgam attack, the deadliest in Kashmir since 2019. The attack, widely attributed to Pakistan-based terrorist outfits like Lashkar-e-Taiba and its offshoot The Resistance Front, prompted India to demand that Pakistan dismantle its support for cross-border terrorism. By leveraging the treaty, India sought to pressure Islamabad into fulfilling its international obligation to prevent its territory from being used for anti-India activities.
More than an act of aggression, it is a legitimate effort to hold Pakistan accountable for its complicity in terrorism.
Pakistan’s countermeasure — suspending the Shimla Agreement — is a strategic disaster. The agreement’s core provisions, including the commitment to dialogue and respect for the LoC, provide a structured mechanism to manage disputes, particularly over Kashmir.
By unilaterally abandoning this framework, Pakistan has effectively removed the diplomatic guardrails that prevent military escalation. This is a dangerous misstep, especially given India’s military superiority. With the agreement in abeyance, India is theoretically unconstrained in pursuing punitive measures, such as surgical strikes, cross-border operations, or even efforts to reclaim territories ceded in 1972 or liberate parts of Pakistan-occupied Kashmir.
Pakistan’s leadership, often dictated by its dominant military, has gravely misjudged the consequences. The suspension of the Shimla Agreement hands India a strategic advantage, allowing it to justify retaliatory actions as a response to Pakistan’s own violation of bilateral norms. Consider the irony: India seeks justice for the Pahalgam victims, and Pakistan’s decision has lowered the diplomatic threshold for such actions.
The LoC, once a mutually respected boundary, is now a potential flashpoint, and Pakistan’s weaker conventional forces are ill-equipped to counter India’s might in an open conflict.
Pakistan’s attempt to justify its decision — accusing India of “fomenting terrorism” and violating UN resolutions — rings hollow. The international community has long recognised Pakistan’s role in harbouring terrorist groups, and its track record of violating the Shimla Agreement, as seen in Kargil, undermines its credibility. By contrast, India’s actions are rooted in self-defence and a demand for accountability, earning it greater sympathy in global capitals. Pakistan’s economy, already teetering, cannot afford the fallout of heightened tensions or conflict, especially when India’s diversified economy and robust alliances provide it with far greater resilience.
The suspension of the Shimla Agreement isolates Pakistan diplomatically and weakens its position on Kashmir. The agreement’s emphasis on bilateralism has long been India’s preferred approach, resisting third-party interventions that Pakistan has sought. By abandoning it, Pakistan risks inviting international scrutiny that could further expose its support for terrorism. Meanwhile, India stands to gain, as the absence of the agreement frees it to pursue a more assertive posture without violating bilateral commitments.
It is hoped that Pakistan’s leadership recognises the folly of this decision and seeks to de-escalate before the situation spirals. India, firmly in the right, should capitalise on its strategic advantage, whether through targeted military actions to deter future attacks or intensified diplomatic efforts to isolate Pakistan globally.
The Shimla Agreement’s suspension is Pakistan’s loss, not India’s. By dismantling a framework meant to prevent conflict, Pakistan has exposed its vulnerabilities and emboldened India to act decisively. This is not the path to stability but a dangerous gamble that Pakistan is destined to lose.