In a geopolitical earthquake, Pakistan’s “suspension” of the Simla Agreement of 1972 following the brutal attack on Indian tourists at Pahalgam on April 22 marks a turning point in South Asian diplomacy. While Islamabad’s move may seem aggressive, in reality, it has delivered India a rare strategic opportunity.
The Simla Agreement, signed on July 2, 1972, has long been considered one of India’s most egregious diplomatic miscalculations. Rather than securing the fruits of its overwhelming military victory in the 1971 Bangladesh Liberation War, New Delhi, under Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, inexplicably chose magnanimity over hard-nosed realism. In doing so, India squandered a once-in-a-lifetime advantage.
As former diplomat A.S. Bhasin meticulously documented in his landmark book, Negotiating India’s Landmark Agreements, India’s history is replete with examples of poor treaty negotiation. Of all such missteps, the Simla Agreement arguably stands out as the worst.
By the end of 1971, India held all the cards. Pakistani forces had capitulated in East Pakistan, 93,000 Pakistani soldiers were prisoners of war, and India had seized over 5,000 square miles of Pakistani territory.
Yet Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, Pakistan’s shrewd and charismatic leader, walked into Simla with no real leverage—and walked out having achieved a diplomatic triumph. He secured:
- The release of 93,000 POWs without conditions
- The return of Pakistani territory captured by India
- A commitment from India to treat Kashmir as a bilateral issue, thereby preserving Pakistan’s position
Bhutto’s success in Simla was so profound that it has colored Pakistan’s policies towards India ever since. Instead of enforcing a final settlement, India legitimized the “dispute” status of Kashmir. Mrs. Gandhi’s pursuit of peace and regional stability was admirable, but fatally misplaced.
The Simla Agreement’s clauses offered Pakistan dangerous openings. Notably:
- “In Jammu and Kashmir, the line of control resulting from the ceasefire of 17 December 1971, shall be respected by both sides without prejudice to the recognized position of either side.”
The phrase “without prejudice” left Kashmir’s legal status ambiguous. Pakistan weaponized this ambiguity relentlessly, arguing that Kashmir remained a “disputed” territory.
- “The two countries are resolved to settle their differences by peaceful means through bilateral negotiations or by any other peaceful means mutually agreed upon between them.”
“Other peaceful means” opened the door to Pakistan’s appeals for internationalization—through the United Nations and third-party interventions—despite the supposed bilateral framework.
Even more egregious was India’s failure to secure the return of its own 54 missing soldiers captured by Pakistan. While the Simla Agreement facilitated the repatriation of Pakistan’s 93,000 prisoners, the fate of these Indian soldiers was left unaddressed. Their families continue to grieve in the dark, a tragic reminder of diplomatic negligence.
Why did India, victorious and dominant, negotiate from a position of weakness? Part of the answer lies in the ideological inclinations of Mrs. Gandhi’s advisers, notably D.P. Dhar and P.N. Haksar—staunch leftists and idealists who prioritized a broader vision of regional democracy over narrow national interest.
They feared a punitive treaty might destabilize Pakistan further, leading to renewed military dictatorship or chaos. Their idealism sought to give Bhutto breathing room for democratic consolidation.
History, however, proved them wrong. Pakistani hostility only deepened. Far from nurturing democracy, Bhutto returned home to intensify the rhetoric of “revenge” and “liberation” of Kashmir. He sowed the seeds of perpetual enmity.
Indian history is littered with examples where magnanimity towards defeated foes led to disaster. The most infamous was Prithvi Raj Chauhan’s release of Muhammad Ghori after the First Battle of Tarain in 1191. Ghori returned the next year, defeated and killed Chauhan, and paved the way for centuries of foreign domination.
The Simla Agreement belongs to the same tragic continuum: a peace gesture that emboldened the adversary.
By suspending the Simla Agreement, Pakistan has unintentionally liberated India from its biggest diplomatic shackle.
Under Prime Minister Narendra Modi, New Delhi has shown a greater inclination to pursue realpolitik. The nullification of the Simla framework removes the burden of “bilateralism,” allowing India to:
- Internationally assert that Pakistan’s claim over Kashmir is baseless
- Frame Pakistan’s occupation of parts of Jammu & Kashmir as illegal
- Mobilize international opinion more aggressively against Pakistan-sponsored terrorism
India can now reframe the entire Kashmir narrative: not as a “dispute” but as a question of completing the integration of the Union Territory.
Geopolitical winds today favor India more than in 1972. The world views India as a stabilizing force, a democracy confronting autocratic China and rogue Pakistan. U.S.-India ties have never been closer. The Arab world, traditionally sympathetic to Pakistan, is recalibrating its position in favor of deeper economic ties with India.
Meanwhile, Pakistan’s image continues to nosedive: seen as a haven for terrorism, economically imploding, and politically unstable.
In this context, Pakistan’s suspension of the Simla Agreement is an own goal.
The Narendra Modi government must now act decisively.
First, New Delhi must officially declare that it no longer considers the Simla Agreement operative. Second, it should elevate its claims on Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK) to a central plank of its foreign policy.
Third, India must document and expose Pakistan’s war crimes—from the 1971 Bangladesh genocide to terrorism in Kashmir—in international forums. The world must not forget Pakistan’s history of brutality.
Finally, India must internally consolidate Jammu and Kashmir: ensuring security, fostering economic development, and integrating the region fully into the Indian Union.
There is no room for naïve idealism. India’s experience with Pakistan has been a brutal education. Appeasement and gestures of goodwill have only been interpreted as weakness.
Real peace can only come from a position of strength.
The era of Simla is over. And not a moment too soon.
The Simla Agreement, born out of India’s misplaced altruism, ultimately undermined Indian interests for five decades. Now, in the wake of Pakistan’s own rash actions, it stands dismantled.
In killing Simla, Pakistan may have unknowingly set the stage for a new era—one in which India, confident and assertive, can finally resolve the historical wrongs of 1947 and 1972.
India must seize the moment with clear eyes and a steely will.
