ISLAMABAD, Pakistan – Tensions between India and Pakistan have killed at least 26 people since attacking tourists in Pahargam, a scenic resort town of India-controlled Kashmir on April 22.
The two countries have announced a series of TAT measures, raising fear of wider conflict.
On Wednesday, it announced the suspension of the Indus Water Treaty (IWT) six years ago, after a cabinet meeting led by Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi. It also announced the closure of the border with Pakistan, trade halts, visa cancellations and a decline in Pakistani diplomats in India.
In response, Pakistan’s National Security Committee (NSC), the leading decision-making body for the civilian military, has announced large threats of closing borders and airspace, halting trade and, significantly, suspending participation in all bilateral agreements with India, including the SIMLA deal.
The SIMLA Agreement, signed in 1972, outlines its commitment to form the foundation of India-Pakistan’s relations, administering the Line of Control (LOC) and peacefully resolving conflicts.
Pakistan’s threat to suspend the agreement indicates a potentially serious escalation. But what exactly is the Simla deal, and what does it mean if Pakistan pulls it out?
What is a Simla contract?
Seven months after the 1971 war that India won and led to the creation of Bangladesh, Pakistan President Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi met in Shimla, the hilly capital of the Indian state of Himachal Pradesh.
Important points of contract [PDF]Included on both sides a peaceful settlement of the conflict, signed on July 2, 1972, and a resolution of the issues, including Kashmir.
He also sought respect for territorial sovereignty, integrity, political independence and intervention in domestic affairs.
One of the most important outcomes was the renaming of the ceasefire line, the labor boundary between the two countries, and the renaming of the control line (LOC).
Following the war in 1971, the agreement had released more than 90,000 Pakistani prisoners.
“If a final settlement of issues between the two countries is pending, neither side will unilaterally change the situation, and both will prevent organizations, support or encouragement that are detrimental to maintaining a peaceful and harmonious relationship,” the agreement states.
Why is the Pakistan threat so important?
Ahmer Bilal Soofi, a leading international law expert and former legal counsel to the Pakistan government, described the SIMLA agreement as a temporary but important framework between the two countries.
“To suspend the agreement, a meticulous internal assessment will be required,” Sophie told Al Jazeera, assures that it will serve the country’s interests in retaliation against India. “Decisions must include extreme due diligence.”
Another international law expert, Muhammad Mushtaq Ahmad of Shifa Tamia Emira University, explained that India has long interpreted the Shimra Agreement as a UNSC resolution.
“India’s position is that this agreement will make Kashmir a purely bilateral issue and eliminate the need for international mediation,” Ahmad said.
Himalayas’ territory has been a flashpoint between the two countries since its independence from British rule in 1947, each controlling the Kashmir ruling part, but it is a complete claim. Since independence, nuclear-armed neighbors have fought four wars, three of which are over Kashmir.
Meanwhile, Pakistan claims that the SIMLA agreement has reaffirmed the UNSC resolution advocating diplomatic and political solutions.
After the Modi government revoked India-controlled semi-autonomous position in Kashmir in 2019, Pakistan accused New Delhi of violating the SIMLA deal.
Islamabad could be quoted to justify the suspension of participation in the agreement, Ahmad said. Under the Vienna Convention on Treaty Law – Pakistan has signed, but India is not – material violations allow the state to condemn the treaty, he added.
However, India’s defense analyst Ajay Shukla says that once either or both countries break out of the SIMLA deal it effectively represents the “open season” of LOC.
“That could lead to both sides changing the ground position of the LOC, and they are encouraged to use weapons as there are no treaties to impose peace,” a New Delhi-based analyst told Al Jazeera.
Does suspending the Simla agreement mean war?
Despite the Shimura Agreement, India and Pakistan are engaged in conflicts, including the four-year JOUST for the control of the Siachen Glacier, the world’s best battlefield, and the 1999 Kargil War.
Academic Ahmad said the LOC was unable to establish lasting peace.
Pakistan’s constitutional expert Rida Hosain argued that India historically “abused” the Simla agreement in favour of its historical .
“In the heart of Shimura [Agreement] It’s peaceful coexistence. India’s recent rhetoric and denunciation of the war-continuing attacks, mentioned it, referring to India’s allegations that Pakistan is responsible for the attack on Pahargam.
However, Shukla, a former Indian army officer, said that Pakistan’s withdrawal from the Shimra Accord does not automatically constitute a declaration of war. Still, it will bring neighbors closer to potential military conflicts.
“Some people don’t automatically lead to another, but that means they no longer have an international treaty guardrail that will withhold engaging in armed hostility,” he said.
What is the rationale for Pakistan?
Unlike the immediate implementation of other retaliatory measures, Pakistan simply threatened to escape from the Simla deal.
According to Soofi, Pakistan’s rationale comes from the desire to return to multilateralism.
“India used Shimra to argue that Kashmir is purely a bilateral issue. By suspending it, Pakistan can return to the mechanisms of the UN Security Council and internationalize the Kashmir conflict,” Sophie said.
Shukla said by suspending the agreement, both parties can provide international coverage to pursue benefits to the LOC in an impossible way while complying with the agreement.
“Pakistan has always had the concept that treaties like the Shimla Agreement are joining hands from pursuing benefits to places like Shea Chen. India successfully acquired the strategically located Siachen Glacier in 1984 in a military operation that Pakistan claimed to have violated the SIMLA Agreement.
Meanwhile, India feels that the deal is also hampered, Shukla said. New Delhi has long argued that Pakistan-controlled Kashmir belongs to India, and under Modi, domestic rhetoric will regain the growth of its territory.
“Essentially, both sides feel that the agreement does not protect their interests,” Shukla said.
Ahmad suggests that the suspension of India’s IWT justifies Pakistan’s self-defense measures and could already constitute an act of aggression under international law. Under IWT, India acquires the waters of the Rabbi, Beads and Satrej Rivers, all parts of the Indus Basin. Pakistan, on the other hand, is entitled to most of the waters of the Indus, Jeram and Chenab Rivers.
“The Water Treaty supports the lives of nearly 250 million Pakistanis, and the suspension of that can be considered a hostile act,” Ahmad said.
Ahmad said the threat of withdrawing from the Simla deal was a “sensible decision by the government to remind India and issue some kind of warning.”
Source link
