Dr Bilawal Kamran

The Simla Agreement, also spelled as the Shimla Agreement, marked a significant diplomatic milestone in South Asian history. Signed on 2 July 1972, in the Indian hill town of Shimla, this agreement emerged in the aftermath of the 1971 Indo-Pakistani War—a conflict that dramatically reshaped regional geopolitics and resulted in the creation of Bangladesh, formerly East Pakistan. While the treaty was hailed as a step toward peace, it also exposed deep-rooted tensions and offered a glimpse into the complexity of future India-Pakistan relations.

The Simla Agreement did not arise in a vacuum. It was born out of the devastating 1971 war, which saw India intervening militarily in support of the Mukti Bahini, the Bengali nationalist forces fighting for independence from West Pakistan. The humanitarian crisis in East Pakistan, marked by widespread atrocities and the displacement of millions into Indian territory, prompted India to act. The war culminated in a swift Indian victory and the disintegration of Pakistan’s eastern wing, leading to the formation of Bangladesh.

In the immediate aftermath, India found itself in a position of unprecedented leverage. Indian forces had captured more than 13,000 square kilometers of Pakistani territory and held over 90,000 Pakistani prisoners of war. Yet, instead of consolidating its dominance, India chose a diplomatic route, according to Indian point of view. The Simla Agreement was intended to chart a new path for peaceful coexistence between the two hostile neighbors.

Pl subscribe to the YouTube channel of republicpolicy.com for quality podcasts:

The agreement, signed by Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi and Pakistani President Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, outlined several principles to guide future bilateral relations:

1. Peaceful Settlement of Disputes: At its core, the agreement emphasized resolving disputes—particularly the sensitive Kashmir issue—through bilateral negotiations. This clause has since become India’s primary argument against any third-party intervention, including that of the United Nations, asserting that all matters must be handled directly between the two countries.
2. Conversion of Ceasefire Line into the Line of Control (LoC): The 1971 ceasefire line in Jammu and Kashmir was formally redesignated as the Line of Control (LoC). Both parties agreed not to attempt to alter this line unilaterally, regardless of their legal or political interpretations.
3. Mutual Respect for Sovereignty and Territorial Integrity: Both nations pledged to respect each other’s national unity, sovereignty, and territorial boundaries, and to refrain from interfering in each other’s internal affairs.
4. Commitment to Peace and Non-Aggression: The treaty bound both countries to avoid the use of force, and to discourage hostile propaganda or actions that could damage bilateral relations.
5. Withdrawal of Troops and Normalization Steps: The agreement mandated the withdrawal of armed forces to positions held before the 1971 conflict and encouraged steps toward normalizing diplomatic and economic ties. This included resumption of communications, trade, travel, and cultural exchange.
6. Repatriation and Future Dialogues: It also laid the foundation for discussions on humanitarian issues such as the repatriation of prisoners of war and civilian detainees. Importantly, it was agreed that both heads of state would meet again and that further negotiations would take place to ensure sustained peace.

India made a major concession by returning the bulk of captured Pakistani territory, over 13,000 km², to Islamabad. However, it retained some strategic areas in the Chorbat Valley, including Turtuk, Tyakshi (Tiaqsi), Dhothang, and Chalunka, totaling around 883 km². These territories remain under Indian control to this day, enhancing India’s strategic position in Ladakh and providing access to the Siachen Glacier—a region that would become a flashpoint in later years.

Despite its lofty goals, the Simla Agreement has not prevented the recurrence of conflict between the two countries. In 1984, India launched Operation Meghdoot to take control of the Siachen Glacier, a region not explicitly defined in the agreement. Pakistan viewed this as a direct violation of Simla, though India argued that the area had been left out due to its inhospitable terrain, not due to mutual agreement.

The Kargil War in 1999, yet another military conflict in Kashmir, further exposed the limitations of the Simla framework. By that time, India’s claim that Kashmir should be addressed bilaterally—excluding international forums—had been repeatedly challenged by Pakistan, which continued to call for UN or third-party mediation.

Even today, both countries interpret key aspects of the agreement differently. India maintains that the 1972 accord effectively rendered the United Nations Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan (UNMOGIP) obsolete, since the ceasefire line of 1949 no longer existed. Pakistan disputes this, arguing that international oversight is still relevant, especially given the continued tensions in Kashmir.

Another understated yet pivotal outcome of the Simla Agreement was that it paved the way for Pakistan’s eventual recognition of Bangladesh. Though not mentioned explicitly in the treaty, the diplomatic thaw created by Simla made future reconciliation between Dhaka and Islamabad possible. Pakistan formally recognized Bangladesh in 1974, following further negotiations.

The Simla Agreement, for all its flaws and ambiguities, still forms the bedrock of India-Pakistan diplomatic engagement. Its insistence on bilateralism continues to shape Indian foreign policy, especially regarding Kashmir. However, its failure to prevent future wars, and the lack of a mechanism for accountability or enforcement, limit its practical value.

Critics argue that the agreement was more symbolic than substantive. Bhutto was under immense pressure to secure the release of Pakistani POWs and regain lost territory, which some analysts say forced him into a deal that lacked strategic depth. Conversely, India’s decision to return land without securing a more permanent resolution on Kashmir is seen by some as a missed opportunity.

The Simla Agreement was a bold diplomatic experiment, emerging from the rubble of war, intended to prevent future bloodshed. While it offered a framework for bilateral peace, its ambiguities, lack of enforcement, and differing interpretations have left the region stuck in a cycle of conflict and mistrust. Its legacy is one of hope tempered by reality—a reminder of what diplomacy can achieve, and what it can overlook in the pursuit of fragile peace.