Over five decades have passed since the Shimla Agreement was signed on July 2, 1972, between the Prime Ministers of India and Pakistan, Indira Gandhi and Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, following the 1971 Indo-Pak war. While hailed by some as a diplomatic triumph for peace, others see it as a political trap—particularly from the perspective of the disputed territory of Jammu and Kashmir, whose people were not represented during its negotiation or implementation.
This report examines the Shimla Agreement in detail—its clauses, context, contested interpretations, and its long-lasting impact on Kashmir’s political future, with a focus on the perspective of the people of Jammu & Kashmir, especially those living under Pakistani and Indian administrations.
Historical Background
The Shimla Agreement came in the aftermath of a devastating war in 1971 between India and Pakistan, which led to the creation of Bangladesh. Pakistan had suffered a humiliating defeat, with over 90,000 of its soldiers taken as prisoners of war (POWs). Under immense political and military pressure, the then Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto sought a deal with India to secure the return of the POWs and prevent further territorial losses.
India, led by Indira Gandhi, used this moment of leverage to negotiate what would later become a cornerstone of India’s Kashmir policy—an agreement that emphasized bilateralism over international mediation.
Key Provisions of the Shimla Agreement
The Shimla Agreement consists of several key commitments made by both countries:
- Bilateral Resolution of Disputes:
All disputes, including Jammu & Kashmir, will be resolved bilaterally through peaceful means, without involving any third party. - Respect for the Line of Control (LoC):
Both sides agreed to respect the ceasefire line, now renamed the Line of Control, and not to alter it unilaterally, despite not recognizing it as an international border. - Non-Use of Force:
Both nations committed to renounce the use of force and seek peaceful coexistence. - Withdrawal and Normalization:
The agreement also laid the groundwork for the withdrawal of forces and resumption of diplomatic relations and trade.
India’s Interpretation and Strategic Use
India considers the Shimla Agreement as a binding bilateral treaty, effectively sidelining UN involvement in the Kashmir issue. Over the years, successive Indian governments have used it to:
- Reject third-party mediation, including from the United Nations, the United States, or the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC).
- Argue that all prior UN Security Council Resolutions are now obsolete.
- Legitimize the status quo in Kashmir, even as it takes unilateral actions like the abrogation of Article 370 in August 2019.
For India, the Shimla Agreement essentially closes the door to any international forum addressing the Kashmir dispute, positioning it strictly as an India-Pakistan bilateral issue.
Pakistan’s Position and Strategic Concessions
While Pakistan initially signed the Shimla Agreement under strategic duress, over time, it has taken a more flexible and sometimes contradictory stance:
- Pakistan insists that the agreement does not invalidate earlier UN resolutions, particularly the ones guaranteeing the right to self-determination for Kashmiris.
- Yet, Pakistan also uses the agreement to support peace talks with India on Kashmir, invoking it to justify diplomatic overtures and track-II dialogues.
Critics argue that Pakistan, under Bhutto, compromised the international status of the Kashmir dispute by accepting bilateralism at a time of extreme national vulnerability.
The Kashmir Perspective: Silenced in Shimla
Perhaps the most significant omission from the Shimla Agreement was the complete absence of Kashmiri representation.
The fate of over 20 million people across Jammu & Kashmir—from Srinagar to Skardu, Poonch to Gilgit—was debated and decided by two states, neither of which consulted the principal stakeholders: the people of Kashmir.
This exclusion has led many Kashmiris—particularly in pro-independence and rights-based movements—to reject the legitimacy of the Shimla Agreement. From the JKLF to newer grassroots coalitions, a common sentiment is that Kashmir cannot be treated as a bilateral issue, because it is fundamentally a question of people’s rights, identity, and sovereignty.
Impacts on Kashmir’s Struggle and Regional Politics
1. Marginalization of International Forums
The Shimla Agreement served as a tool to sideline international efforts, particularly those rooted in UN resolutions calling for a plebiscite.
2. Stalling the Peace Process
Despite over 50 years of the agreement, no durable resolution has emerged. Bilateral talks have repeatedly collapsed, and both countries have fought multiple skirmishes and full-scale wars since.
3. Undermining Kashmiri Autonomy
India’s abrogation of Article 370 and 35A in 2019—which removed the special status of Jammu & Kashmir—has been widely criticized as a violation of the Shimla Agreement, which commits to not making unilateral changes affecting Kashmir.
4. Political Exploitation
Both countries have used the agreement to serve state interests. Where India uses it to fend off global scrutiny, Pakistan uses it to justify temporary ceasefires or diplomatic resets, often without meaningful gains for Kashmiris.
Legal and Ethical Questions
- Does the Shimla Agreement override UN resolutions?
From a legal standpoint, UNSC resolutions cannot be nullified by bilateral agreements, unless both parties officially withdraw from them. - Is it binding on Kashmiris who were not party to it?
Ethically and legally, no political agreement is valid without the informed consent of the people it most directly affects. - Has it contributed to peace?
While the agreement may have prevented large-scale wars in some cases, it has not provided a sustainable framework for peace or justice, especially in Kashmir.
Conclusion: A Diplomatic Mirage or a Foundation for Peace?
The Shimla Agreement remains a controversial landmark in South Asian diplomacy. For India, it’s a cornerstone of its Kashmir policy. For Pakistan, a historical compromise. But for the people of Kashmir—particularly those seeking self-determination or autonomy—it is seen as a betrayal, or at best, a blind alley that has failed to deliver justice, dignity, or resolution.
If peace in the region is ever to be meaningful, it cannot be built on exclusive bilateralism that ignores the voices of Kashmir’s people. A just and lasting resolution requires renewed international engagement, acknowledgment of Kashmiris as central stakeholders, and a rethinking of policies that treat the region as a bargaining chip rather than a homeland.
