Tensions between India and Pakistan have sharply escalated following a deadly terror attack on 22 April 2025 in Baisaran Valley near Pahalgam, located in Indian Illegally Occupied Jammu and Kashmir (IIOJ&K). As Indian media swiftly pinned blame on Pakistan and New Delhi issued strongly worded statements, Islamabad responded in kind. In the days that followed, the two nuclear-armed neighbours downgraded diplomatic ties, revoked visas under the SAARC exemption framework, closed key border crossings, and traded heated rhetoric. But it was India’s decision to place the Indus Waters Treaty in abeyance—and Pakistan’s dramatic countermeasure of suspending the 1972 Simla Agreement—that signalled the most serious deterioration in bilateral relations in years.
Details on the Indus Waters Treaty have been covered here. Let’s now turns to the Simla Agreement—what exactly does it entail, and what could its suspension mean for both India and Pakistan?
On July 2, 1972 in Simla, Himachal, after the separation of Bangladesh from Pakistan, and worsened bi-relations between India and Pakistan, both countries signed the agreement that officially ended hostilities between the two nations. This agreement – titled as Simla Agreement – was signed by the-then Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi and the-then President of Pakistan Zulfikar Ali Bhutto.
The signatures came at Barnes Court—now the Raj Bhavan— after days of intense negotiations. Considering that the agreement came in the aftermath of a war between the two countries, this Simla Agreement marked a mutual commitment to settle all future disputes through peaceful, bilateral means.
The agreement aimed to end the armed conflict and ensure continued peace, not just for the subcontinent but also for the neighbouring nations.
The pact was signed by then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi and Pakistan President Zulfikar Ali Bhutto on July 2, 1972, at Barnes Court – now known as Raj Bhavan – in Himachal Pradesh’s Shimla. The accord was finalised after days of negotiations between the two sides. The wording of the Simla Agreement says that it aims to “work for the promotion of a friendly and harmonious relationship and the establishment of durable peace in the sub-continent… The principles and purposes of the Charter of the United Nations shall govern the relations between the two countries”.
Rooted in the spirit of the founding document of United Nations, the agreement pledged respect for each other’s sovereignty, territorial integrity, and political independence. Crucially, both India and Pakistan agreed not to alter the status quo unilaterally – particularly in Jammu and Kashmir – until a final settlement was reached.
The ceasefire line established after the 1971 conflict was renamed the Line of Control (LoC), which both sides vowed to honour without prejudice to their respective positions. “Both sides further undertake to refrain from the threat of the use of force in violation of this line,” the treaty says.
To bring durable peace, governments of both nations agreed to withdraw troops to their side of the border, and agreed to resume “communications, postal, telegraphic, sea, land including border posts, and air links including overflights”.
In spirit, the Simla Agreement laid the groundwork for restoring diplomatic and logistical ties – reopening communication links, border posts, and overflight rights – as a gesture toward normalisation.
WHY DOES SIMLA AGREEMENT’S SUSPENSION MATTER?
Because setting it aside strips away one of the last remaining diplomatic frameworks that has kept tensions however strained from boiling over entirely.
For India, the Simla Agreement has long been a shield against internationalising the Kashmir dispute – calling it a bilateral issue under the accord. Pakistan, on the other hand, have raised the issue of Kashmir on multiple fora.
It is notable here that the 1999 Kargil war took place despite Simla Agreement well in place. So there is no definite answer to whether its suspension – like holding of Indus Water Treaty in abeyance by India – will lead to any immediate action, military or otherwise. It does, however, mean that the two neighbours may find themselves without even the thinnest of diplomatic veils to mask a rapidly unravelling relationship.