The Shimla Agreement of 1972 represents a foundational diplomatic framework that continues to shape South Asian geopolitics. Yet, its core principles face systematic erosion from Pakistan’s enduring commitment to terrorism as statecraft. In the aftermath of Operation Sindoor and in light of US President Donald Trump’s misrepresented claims of mediating Indo-Pakistani peace, it becomes essential to examine how the bilateral framework of this historic accord remains both relevant and under siege.
The agreement’s emphasis on peaceful resolution through bilateral negotiations stands in stark contrast to Pakistan’s persistent use of terror proxies, making India’s conditions for engagement not merely strategic preferences but existential necessities for regional stability. The recent remarks by Pakistan’s de facto ruler, self-styled Field Marshal Asim Munir, at the Naval Academy—calling for the resolution of the Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) issue under the United Nations framework—only serve to entrench a permanent deadlock.
Historical genesis and enduring geopolitical architecture
Signed on July 2, 1972, by Prime Minister Indira Gandhi and President Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, the Shimla Agreement emerged from India’s decisive victory in the 1971 war. The accord established several transformative principles: conversion of the ceasefire line into the Line of Control (LoC) with neither side seeking unilateral alteration, commitment to “settle their differences by peaceful means through bilateral negotiations”, and crucially, the exclusion of third-party mediation.
The agreement’s geopolitical significance extended beyond mere post-war arrangements. It established that Kashmir would be a bilateral issue between India and Pakistan, excluding third-party intervention, a principle that has remained central to India’s diplomatic strategy. India demonstrated magnanimity by returning over 13,000 square kms of captured territory, while retaining strategic areas including Turtuk and Chalunka, signalling its commitment to peace within a framework of mutual respect.
The bilateral framework served multiple strategic purposes: preventing the internationalisation of the Kashmir dispute, maintaining India’s agency in conflict resolution, and ensuring that dialogue addressed root causes rather than superficial symptoms. Together with the Indus Waters Treaty, the Shimla Agreement became a cornerstone for managing conflicts, facilitating dialogue, and avoiding large-scale war.
Pakistan’s terror ecosystem: Systematic violation of Shimla principles
Pakistan’s approach to the Shimla Agreement has been characterised by consistent violations through its maintenance of an extensive terror infrastructure that directly contravenes the agreement’s commitment to peaceful coexistence. Intelligence assessments reveal Pakistan as perhaps the world’s most active sponsor of terrorist groups, with its Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) providing systematic support to designated terrorist organisations.
The scale of Pakistan’s terror operations is staggering. According to the Global Terrorism Index 2025, Pakistan has become the second-most terrorism-affected country, witnessing a 45% increase in terrorism-related deaths from 748 in 2023 to 1,081 in 2024. Terror attacks more than doubled from 517 in 2023 to 1,099 in 2024, marking the first-year attacks exceeded 1,000 since the index’s inception.
Pakistan’s terror factory operates through a sophisticated network where the ISI orchestrates attacks via proxies like Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM), and Hizbul Mujahideen. The LeT headquarters in Muridke and JeM stronghold in Bahawalpur operate near military installations, highlighting institutional complicity. These groups receive funding through front organisations, with LeT using Jamaat-ud-Dawa and Falah-e-Insaniat Foundation to raise money under the guise of social work.
The April 22, 2025, Pahalgam attack, which killed 25 tourists and a local pony ride operator, exemplifies Pakistan’s strategy of using terrorism to destabilise India while simultaneously claiming commitment to peace. The attack, attributed to The Resistance Front (a LeT front), represented a shift from cross-border attacks to dividing India from within through communal targeting.
Former Pakistani leaders have openly admitted this strategy. Ex-Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif hinted at state involvement in the 2008 Mumbai attacks, while General Pervez Musharraf confessed to training terrorists for proxy war in Kashmir. Most recently, Defence Minister Khawaja Muhammad Asif admitted that Pakistan had supported terror outfits for three decades.
India’s non-negotiable conditions: Essential prerequisites for regional security
India’s conditions for bilateral engagement stem from decades of experience with Pakistan’s duplicitous approach to diplomacy. The current policy framework, as articulated by external affairs ministry spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal, is uncompromising: “terrorism and talks cannot go together”.
India’s non-negotiable preconditions include: dismantling of terrorist infrastructure in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK), handover of designated terrorists whose list was provided to Pakistan, cessation of cross-border terrorism, and recognition that any Kashmir discussions will focus solely on the vacating of illegally occupied Indian territory by Pakistan.
These conditions are not maximalist demands but essential prerequisites for sustainable peace. As Prime Minister Modi emphasised that terror and talks cannot go together, terror and trade cannot go together, and water and blood cannot flow together. The suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty remains in abeyance until Pakistan credibly and irrevocably abjures its support for cross-border terrorism.
India’s insistence on bilateral engagement without third-party mediation reflects both the provisions of the Shimla Agreement and strategic wisdom. External affairs minister S Jaishankar has consistently maintained that “India has been clear for 40 odd years that we would not accept mediation”. This position ensures India retains agency in addressing terrorism-related issues while preventing Pakistan from internationalising disputes.
The bilateral framework prevents the internationalisation of the Kashmir dispute that Pakistan has consistently sought. It maintains strategic autonomy in managing regional security challenges and ensures meaningful dialogue addresses the root causes of conflict rather than cosmetic measures. Trump’s recent claims of mediating between India and Pakistan fundamentally misrepresent the reality that the May 10, 2025, ceasefire was reached through direct dialogue between the two parties via existing military channels.
Contemporary relevance and strategic implications
Pakistan’s announcement of the suspension of the Shimla Agreement in April 2025 represents a strategic miscalculation that removes diplomatic guardrails preventing military escalation. This unilateral action legitimises India’s position that Pakistan cannot be trusted to honour international commitments while maintaining terrorist infrastructure.
The suspension has far-reaching implications. With the agreement in abeyance, India is theoretically unconstrained in pursuing punitive measures, as demonstrated by Operation Sindoor’s successful targeting of nine terrorist training camps. This also implies that the sanctity of the Line of Control (LoC) has lost its sanctity. The operation’s international support demonstrates India’s ability to build global consensus against terrorism while maintaining operational flexibility.
India’s evolved doctrine of not accepting terrorism as proxy war, but as war itself, signifies that future responses will be swift and even more prohibitive than hitherto fore. As post-Operation Sindoor India does not differentiate between terrorism and war. The success of Operation Sindoor in dismantling terrorist infrastructure while avoiding escalation establishes a new gold standard for legitimate counter-terrorism operations.
The Shimla Agreement remains relevant as a framework emphasising bilateral engagement over international mediation, but its principles can only be operationalised when both parties demonstrate a genuine commitment to peace. Pakistan’s continued support for terrorism fundamentally violates the agreement’s core provisions regarding peaceful coexistence and territorial integrity.
India’s conditions for engagement represent essential prerequisites for sustainable peace rather than maximalist demands. The dismantling of Pakistan’s terror infrastructure is non-negotiable because terrorism and diplomacy cannot coexist. Until Pakistan credibly dismantles its terrorist infrastructure and ceases cross-border terrorism, India’s position of ‘no talks without terror cessation’ remains both principled and strategically sound.
Disclaimer
Views expressed above are the author’s own.
END OF ARTICLE
