Tensions between India and Pakistan surged after an attack on tourists in Pahalgam, IIOJK. Delhi swiftly accused Pakistan-based separatists of orchestrating the assault, a charge Islamabad denied, instead calling it a false-flag operation aimed at maligning Pakistan. In the wake of outrage, India announced a sweeping response: expelling Pakistani nationals, suspending visas, sealing the Wagah border and halting the Indus Waters Treaty - the last one being an unprecedented move that Islamabad warned could amount to an "act of war".
In retaliation, Pakistan's National Security Committee (NSC), chaired by Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, responded in kind, closing airspace to Indian aircraft, suspending trade and diplomatic ties, and, most significantly, announcing that Pakistan would hold all bilateral agreements with India, including the Simla Agreement, in abeyance.
This declaration marks a critical shift, one that aims to both challenge India's diplomatic framing of Kashmir and revive international legal instruments downgraded in recent years.
Simla Agreement: A Fraying Framework
Signed in 1972 after the Indo-Pakistani war of 1971, the Simla Agreement committed both nations to resolve disputes, including that of Jammu and Kashmir, through bilateral means. It transformed the UN-mandated ceasefire line into the "Line of Control" (LoC), urging restraint and mutual respect for the status quo.
Yet over the decades, Simla's spirit of negotiated peace has remained aspirational. India's unilateral moves - particularly the 2019 revocation of Article 370, which dismantled Kashmir's autonomy - are widely seen in Pakistan as violations of the accord. That decision split Jammu and Kashmir into federally governed territories and opened the door for demographic changes that critics argue amount to settler colonialism. Legal scholars like AG Noorani have called the 2019 move a "deathblow" to existing agreements and international norms on Kashmir.
India, in juxtaposition, accuses Pakistan of breaching Simla Agreement through its support for separatist movements and attempts to internationalise the Kashmir dispute. Delhi maintains that bilateralism remains the only viable path, yet it has not resumed high-level talks with Pakistan since 2019.
Reinvoking International Law
Pakistan's suspension of Simla Agreement is not just symbolic; it marks a strategic reorientation to the international legal framework enshrined in the UN charter and UNSC resolution on Kashmir, which calls for a plebiscite in Jammu and Kashmir. Islamabad argues that Simla Agreement never annulled these resolutions, and that the region remains an UN-recognised disputed territory.
Recent Pakistani statements at the UN have reaffirmed this position: "Jammu and Kashmir is not, and has never been, an integral part of India." The NSC statement explicitly linked the suspension of Simla Agreement to India's violations of international law, citing its efforts to alter Kashmir's status by force and to deny Kashmiris the right to self-determination.
Pakistan seeks to unlock mechanisms long blocked by India's diplomatic posture by stepping away from Simla Agreement's bilateralism clause. This includes lobbying the UN for renewed mediation, invoking the jurisdiction of international courts and calling for the appointment of special envoys or even peacekeeping forces measures previously shelved in deference to Simla Agreement.
Shift Toward Multilateralism
Pakistan's move also emphasises its desire to re-internationalise the Kashmir dispute, a strategy India has long resisted by invoking Simla Agreement. With that framework now suspended, Islamabad has greater freedom to engage international actors and forums.
China, a permanent member of the UN Security Council and a close ally of Pakistan, supported the convening of UNSC discussions on Kashmir in 2019 following India's annexation move. The Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), representing 57 Muslim-majority countries, continues to endorse resolutions backing Kashmiri self-determination.
Given the nature of the UNSC and its powers, China can be used to veto a proposal but not to pass a resolution on Kashmir. In other multilateral institutions, in which China is a partner or member along with India, for example BRICS, it has to be seen how China navigates its power vis-à-vis Kashmir.
Pakistan's diplomatic shift could also sharpen global scrutiny of India's record in Kashmir, particularly as human rights concerns gain traction in international civil society and among Western lawmakers. Reports of abuses, communications blackouts and demographic engineering can now be foregrounded without the constraints of a bilateral framework that has largely failed to deliver justice or resolution.
Raising the Diplomatic Stakes
India's loss of the Simla Agreement may leave it more exposed diplomatically. If New Delhi rejects third-party engagement while refusing bilateral talks, international forums may question whether India's stance impedes peace.
Pakistan, meanwhile, is betting that the costs of the status quo, sustained repression, diplomatic gridlock and geopolitical friction will eventually push the international community to play a more active role. Whether through the UN, the OIC, or ad hoc mediation by trusted global actors, Islamabad signals that bilateral avenues are exhausted and that renewed global involvement is now imperative.
Calculated Gamble
By suspending the Simla Agreement, Pakistan is attempting to recalibrate the diplomatic architecture of the Kashmir conflict. The move strengthens Islamabad's legal argument under international law and exposes the fragility of a bilateral framework long rendered moot by unilateral actions.
This could either be the jolt that reactivates international interest in a decades-old dispute or a dangerous new chapter of confrontation in South Asia, where key conflict-management tools like Simla Agreement and the Indus Waters Treaty now hang in the balance.
Either way, Pakistan has made clear that it will no longer play by the rules that it believes India has already abandoned. Whether this bold step yields renewed engagement or deeper estrangement will depend not only on Islamabad and Delhi but also on how the world chooses to respond.
COMMENTS
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ