Islamabad, Pakistan – Since the April 22 terrorist attack that targeted tourists in the picturesque resort town of Pahalgam in Indian-administered Kashmir, which left at least 26 people dead, tensions between India and Pakistan have soared.
Fears of a wider conflict have been raised by both countries’ announcements of a number of tit-for-tat measures.
India announced on Wednesday that the six-decade-old Indus Waters Treaty (IWT), a crucial agreement that governs the Indus River system’s use, has been suspended following a cabinet meeting led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Both countries are in need of this crucial agreement. Additionally, it announced the closure of Pakistan’s border, a suspension of trade, revocation of visas, and a reduction in Pakistani diplomats’ presence in India.
Similar measures, including border and airspace closures, suspension of trade, and, most importantly, a threat to suspend Pakistan’s participation in all bilateral agreements with India, including the Simla Agreement, were announced by Pakistan’s National Security Committee (NSC), its top civil-military decision-making body.
The Simla Agreement, which governs India-Pakistan relations and specifies commitments to peaceful resolution of disputes, was signed in 1972.
A potentially serious escalation is a result of Pakistan’s threat to suspend the agreement. But what does the Simla Agreement actually mean and what would happen if Pakistan renounced it?
The Simla Agreement is what, exactly?
In order to restart relations, Pakistani President Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi met in Shimla (sometimes spelled Simla), the hilly capital of Himachal Pradesh, in September 1971, which India won.
The two-pronged solution to disputes, including Kashmir, was one of the defining features of the [PDF] agreement, which was signed on July 2, 1972.
Additionally, it urged non-ingerruption in internal affairs, territorial sovereignty, integrity, political independence, and other things.
The Ceasefire Line, the main border between the two nations, was changed to the Line of Control (LoC), with both sides agreeing not to do so in its entirety.
More than 90, 000 Pakistani prisoners of war were released as a result of the agreement, which India held after the war in 1971.
No one side shall unilaterally alter the situation until the two countries’ differences are resolved, and neither side shall assist or encourage any actions that would impair the maintenance of peaceful and harmonious relations, according to the agreement.
What makes Pakistan’s threat significant?
The Simla Agreement was viewed as a proviso but crucial framework by Ahmer Bilal Soofi, a prominent international law expert and former Pakistani government legal adviser.
According to Soofi, Pakistan’s decision to suspend the agreement would necessitate a thorough internal analysis to ensure that it serves its country’s interests by retaliating against India. “Any choice must involve a lot of due diligence.”
According to another international law expert, Shifa Tameer-e-Millat University’s Muhammad Mushtaq Ahmad, India has long interpreted UNSC resolutions as being superior to the Simla Agreement.
According to Ahmad, “India believes that the Kashmir dispute was made purely bilateral by the agreement, removing the need for international mediation.”
Since 1947, when both nations claim the Himalayan territory, each claiming all of it while controlling parts of Kashmir, has been a source of conflict between the two nations. The nuclear-armed neighbors have waged four wars, three of which have involved Kashmir since independence.
Pakistan, on the other hand, maintains that UNSC resolutions that advocated for a diplomatic and political solution were reaffirmed by the Simla Agreement.
Pakistan claimed that New Delhi had violated the Simla Agreement after the Modi government revoked Indian-administered Kashmir’s semi-autonomous status in 2019.
Islamabad could cite that as evidence, according to Ahmad, to justify the suspension of its participation in the agreement. A material breach of a treaty, he added, allows a nation to denounce it under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, which Pakistan is signatory to but India is not.
However, Ajai Shukla, an analyst for Indian defense, claims that the absence of either or both countries would effectively entail an “open season” for the LoC.
The New Delhi-based analyst told Al Jazeera, “It could lead to both sides changing the LoC’s ground position, and they will be encouraged to use arms because there won’t be any treaty that will impose peace, which is currently in place.”
Does the Simla Agreement go into war if it is suspended?
India and Pakistan have engaged in conflict despite the Simla Agreement, including the Kargil War from 1999 to their four-decade joust for supremacy over Siachen Glacier, the world’s highest battleground, and the joust for control of the .
The LoC was unable to achieve lasting peace, according to Ahmad, the academic.
Rida Hosain, a constitutional expert in Pakistan, claimed that India had historically “misused” the Simla Agreement to its advantage.
The key to Simla’s [Agreement] is peaceful coexistence. However, Hosain criticized India’s recent claims that Pakistan is to blame for the Pahalgam attack without providing any evidence, citing India’s assertions. India has requested that India provide evidence to back up its claim, but Pakistan has refuted the accusation. In addition to the Kashmir attack, Islamabad has demanded a “neutral investigation.”
However, Shukla, a former Indian Army officer, claimed a withdrawal from the Simla Agreement by Pakistan would not automatically equate to a war declaration. However, it would bring a potential military conflict between the neighbours.
He said, “One does not always lead to another, but it does mean that neither side will have the security ties to an international treaty that prevents them from engaging in armed hostilities.”
What justification does Pakistan have?
Pakistan has only threatened to leave the Simla Agreement, disguising itself from the immediate implementation of other retaliatory measures.
Soofi claims that Pakistan’s justification is due to its desire to revert to multilateralism.
“India has argued that Kashmir is purely bilateral,” Simla said. Soofi claimed that by allowing it to be pending, Pakistan can return to UN Security Council mechanisms to internationalize the Kashmir dispute.
Shukla claimed that if the pact is suspended, both parties could have international protection if they wanted to pursue their interests on the LoC in a way that was not possible with the agreement.
Pakistan “always believed that treaties like the Simla Agreement, which Pakistan claims is an example of India breaking the agreement,” he said. In a military operation that Pakistan claims violated the Simla Agreement, India successfully captured Siachen Glacier, which is strategically located, in 1984.
According to Shukla, India also feels hampered by the agreement. Under Modi, the domestic rhetoric to militarily retake control of Pakistan-administered Kashmir has grown, as New Delhi has long argued.
According to Shukla, “both parties believe the agreement is not protecting their interests.”
Ahmad contends that Pakistan’s self-defence measures could already be justified by India’s suspension of the IWT as an act of aggression under international law. The Ravi, Beas, and Sutlej rivers, which are all part of the Indus Basin, are all located in India under the IWT. On the other hand, the Indus, Jhelum, and Chenab rivers provide the majority of the water.
Nearly 250 million Pakistanis are supported by the water treaty. Ahmad argued that the suspension is seen as a hostile action.
