The 1972 Shimla Agreement stands as one of South Asia’s most pivotal diplomatic frameworks, yet it has become a testament to Pakistan’s consistent violation of international commitments. This landmark accord, signed by Prime Minister Indira Gandhi and President Zulfikar Ali Bhutto on 2 July 1972, was intended to establish lasting peace between India and Pakistan following the decisive 1971 war that led to Bangladesh’s independence. Instead, it has revealed Pakistan’s systematic pattern of diplomatic posturing whilst simultaneously undermining the very principles it publicly endorsed.
The agreement’s core provisions were unambiguous: both nations committed to resolving all disputes, including Kashmir, through bilateral negotiations, established the Line of Control (LoC) replacing the outdated 1949 Karachi Agreement’s ceasefire line, and pledged to refrain from unilateral alterations to territorial arrangements. These commitments superseded the earlier Karachi Agreement, creating a modern framework for dispute resolution that explicitly mandated bilateral engagement whilst excluding third-party mediation.
Pakistan’s Third-Party Obsession: A Direct Violation of Bilateral Commitment
Perhaps the most egregious violation of the Shimla Agreement has been Pakistan’s relentless pursuit of international mediation, fundamentally contradicting the accord’s bilateral resolution mandate. Despite solemnly agreeing to resolve disputes “by peaceful means through bilateral negotiations”, Pakistan has systematically sought to internationalise the Kashmir issue a particularly blatant violation. Pakistan has repeatedly appealed to American leaders for mediation. Pakistan’s previous Ambassador to the US Masood Khan even hinted at America’s possible mediation for Kashmir’s resolution, with Pakistan’s Foreign Office stating they would “welcome the international community to play their role in promoting peace in the region including in facilitating dialogue and resolution of the core dispute between Pakistan and India”. This represents a clear contravention of the bilateral framework established in 1972. Similarly the recent visit of Pakistan’s Army Chief to meet U.S. President immediately after Operation Sindoor points towards Pakistan desperately internationalise the issue.
The Organisation of Islamic Cooperation has become another platform for Pakistan’s systematic violation of bilateral commitment. Despite the Shimla Agreement’s clear prohibition on third-party involvement, Pakistan has consistently used OIC forums to internationalise Kashmir. Deputy Prime Minister Ishaq Dar’s recent appeal to the OIC to “transform its pronouncements on Jammu and Kashmir into tangible actions” demonstrates Pakistan’s ongoing attempts to circumvent the bilateral framework.
China’s support has been particularly instrumental in Pakistan’s third-party strategy. Following India’s Article 370 decision in 2019, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Hua Chunying explicitly backed third-party mediation, stating “We support the international community, the US included, in playing a constructive role in improving Pakistan-India relations through dialogue”. This Chinese endorsement of international intervention directly contradicts the Shimla Agreement’s bilateral mandate, yet Pakistan actively solicits and celebrates such support.
Turkey under President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has emerged as another third-party supporter, consistently backing Pakistan’s position despite the agreement’s bilateral requirements. The Turkish President’s assertion that “Turkey, as in the past, stands in solidarity with our Kashmiri brothers today” represents precisely the kind of international interference the Shimla Agreement sought to prevent.
The Siachen Betrayal: Pakistan’s Early Territorial Violations
Operation Meghdoot in 1984 exposed Pakistan’s first major violation of the Shimla Agreement’s territorial integrity provisions. Whilst Indian forces pre-emptively occupied the Siachen Glacier, this action was necessitated by Pakistan’s own territorial ambitions and violations of the agreement’s spirit. Pakistan had been granting permission to foreign mountaineering expeditions and engaging in “cartographic aggression” to legitimise claims over the glacier, directly contradicting the agreement’s prohibition on unilateral alterations.
The Siachen conflict revealed Pakistan’s interpretation of the agreement as conveniently flexible when it suited their strategic interests. Despite the 1972 accord establishing clear operational boundaries through the Line of Control, Pakistan continued to assert claims over areas beyond the demarcated line, leading to the highest battlefield in the world.
The Kargil War: Pakistan’s Most Brazen Violation
The 1999 Kargil War represents Pakistan’s most flagrant violation of the Shimla Agreement. Pakistani forces infiltrated across the LoC and occupied strategic positions on the Indian side, directly contradicting the agreement’s prohibition on unilateral alterations to the territorial arrangement. Former Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif himself later admitted this violation, stating “we violated that agreement… it was our fault”.
The Kargil intrusion violated multiple provisions of the Shimla Agreement simultaneously: it altered the LoC unilaterally, involved the use of force, and broke the commitment to peaceful dispute resolution. The conflict demonstrated Pakistan’s willingness to abandon bilateral frameworks when military adventurism seemed advantageous, only to retreat when faced with international pressure and military defeat.
Proxy Terrorism: Pakistan’s Assault on Peace
Pakistan’s sponsorship of terrorism represents perhaps the most sustained violation of the Shimla Agreement’s peace provisions. The 26/11 Mumbai attacks epitomise this pattern, with Pakistani terrorist group Lashkar-e-Taiba conducting a meticulously planned assault that killed 166 people. The attacks were coordinated from Pakistani soil with ISI support, directly contradicting the agreement’s commitment to peaceful relations.
The involvement of Pakistani intelligence services in terrorist activities against India represents a systematic breach of the non-aggression clauses. From the Mumbai attacks to the recent Pahalgam attacks, Pakistan’s continued use of proxy terrorism violates every principle of peaceful coexistence enshrined in the 1972 accord.
Pakistan’s creation and nurturing of terrorist organisations as instruments of state policy fundamentally undermines the Shimla Agreement’s vision of normalised relations.
The Pattern of Selective Compliance
Pakistan’s approach to the Shimla Agreement reveals a pattern of selective compliance designed to extract maximum advantage whilst avoiding genuine commitment to peace. When convenient, Pakistan invokes the agreement’s provisions, particularly regarding the Line of Control. However, when strategic interests dictate otherwise, Pakistan systematically violates the same provisions through proxy warfare, territorial incursions, and international forum manipulation.
The recent suspension of the Shimla Agreement by Pakistan following the Pahalgam attacks demonstrates this calculated approach. Rather than addressing terrorism concerns through bilateral channels as mandated by the agreement, Pakistan chose to suspend the framework entirely, revealing its instrumental view of international commitments.
International Enablement of Pakistani Violations
Pakistan’s violations have been facilitated by international actors who, whether knowingly or otherwise, provide platforms for circumventing bilateral frameworks. China’s consistent support for Pakistan’s position, Turkey’s ideological solidarity, and periodic US mediation offers all contribute to undermining the Shimla Agreement’s bilateral mandate.
The Organisation of Islamic Cooperation has become a particularly useful vehicle for Pakistan’s violation strategy, providing religious legitimacy for what are essentially territorial and political disputes that should be resolved bilaterally. This international enablement emboldens Pakistan’s continued violations whilst weakening the bilateral framework essential for genuine peace.
Final Throughts
Throughout this period of Pakistani violations, India has maintained its commitment to the bilateral framework established by the Shimla Agreement. India’s consistent rejection of third-party mediation, emphasis on bilateral dialogue, and respect for the Line of Control demonstrate genuine adherence to the 1972 accord. Even during periods of extreme provocation, such as the Mumbai attacks or Kargil War, India has sought to resolve disputes through the bilateral mechanism established in 1972.
Pakistan’s violations of the Shimla Agreement represent a systematic pattern of diplomatic duplicity spanning five decades. From the early territorial violations at Siachen to the proxy terrorism of Mumbai, from the military adventurism of Kargil to the current UN forum manipulation, Pakistan has consistently subordinated international commitments to short-term strategic calculations. The 1972 Shimla Agreement, intended as a framework for lasting peace, has instead become a testament to Pakistan’s inability to honour international obligations and its preference for confrontation over cooperation.
The international community’s continued tolerance of these violations only encourages Pakistan’s behaviour whilst undermining the principles of bilateral dispute resolution that are essential for regional stability. Until Pakistan demonstrates genuine commitment to the Shimla Agreement’s bilateral framework, the prospects for lasting peace in South Asia remain fundamentally compromised by Islamabad’s systematic diplomatic duplicity.
(The writer is the Director General, Centre for Land Warfare Studies)
