By Colonel Danvir Singh (Retd)
The Shimla Agreement of 1972 emerges today not merely as a historical artefact, but as India’s most potent diplomatic blueprint against Pakistan’s systematic coercive diplomacy backed by proxy terrorism. In an era marked by Pakistan’s deepening strategic alignment with China and its persistent use of terror as an instrument of statecraft, the agreement’s bilateral framework represents India’s unwavering commitment to principled diplomacy while countering external pressures that seek to internationalise regional disputes. As global geopolitical dynamics shift toward multipolarity, the Shimla Agreement’s emphasis on bilateral resolution mechanisms provides India with the necessary diplomatic armour to resist third-party interventions while building international consensus for its security imperatives.
The geopolitical landscape of South Asia has undergone a profound transformation since the inception of the Shimla Agreement, with Pakistan’s increasing strategic dependence on China creating new challenges for regional stability. The China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), valued at over $62 billion, represents far more than economic cooperation; it constitutes a strategic alliance that fundamentally alters the balance of power in South Asia. This all-weather strategic partnership between Pakistan and China has evolved into what analysts describe as a threshold alliance, approaching the characteristics of a formal military partnership.
China’s support for Pakistan extends across multiple domains that directly threaten India’s security interests. The military dimension is particularly concerning, with China accounting for 81 percent of Pakistan’s arms imports between 2019 and 2023. This includes sophisticated systems such as the JF-17 Thunder fighter aircraft, Al-Khalid tanks, and advanced missile systems.
The strategic implications of this partnership extend beyond conventional military cooperation. China’s investment in Gwadar Port and its development as a potential naval base provides Beijing with critical access to the Arabian Sea, directly challenging India’s maritime security. The presence of Chinese survey vessels with advanced sensors in the Indian Ocean during Operation Sindoor demonstrates real-time strategic coordination that could materialise into a functional two-front military threat against India.
This China-Pakistan strategic alignment fundamentally undermines the premise of the Shimla Agreement, which is based on bilateral engagement, by introducing a powerful third-party actor with vested interests in maintaining regional instability. China’s diplomatic support for Pakistan in international forums, combined with its military and economic backing, enables Pakistan to pursue coercive diplomacy with greater confidence while deflecting international pressure for genuine counter-terrorism measures.
India’s strategic response to Pakistan’s terror-backed coercion has increasingly relied on the Shimla Agreement’s bilateral framework as both a diplomatic shield and a legitimising tool for its security actions. The agreement’s core principle, that the two countries are resolved to settle their differences by peaceful means through bilateral negotiations, provides India with the legal and moral foundation to reject external mediation attempts while maintaining international support for its counter-terrorism operations.
The effectiveness of this approach was demonstrated during Operation Sindoor, where India successfully leveraged the bilateral framework to gain international understanding for its measured, precise, and non-escalatory response to the Pahalgam terrorist attack. By emphasising that the operation targeted only terrorist infrastructure and avoiding Pakistani military installations, India demonstrated its commitment to the Shimla Agreement’s spirit while defending its security interests. The international community’s largely supportive response validated India’s strategy of using bilateral mechanisms to address terror threats without escalating to full-scale conflict.
India’s diplomatic strategy extends beyond crisis management to proactive engagement in multilateral forums, where it consistently reinforces the bilateral principles of the Shimla Agreement. India’s successful G20 presidency in 2023 established important precedents for addressing terrorism-related concerns within the framework of global economic cooperation.
The New Delhi Leaders Declaration represented a significant improvement over previous G20 statements on terrorism, incorporating India-specific security concerns while building broader international consensus. India’s approach focused on highlighting the economic costs of terrorism and the need for coordinated international action to “deny terrorist groups safe haven” and prevent “illicit trafficking and diversion of small arms.”
Moving forward, India can leverage its G20 experience to promote counter-terrorism financing mechanisms and technology cooperation for border security as integral components of global economic stability. This approach allows India to address Pakistan’s terror infrastructure through economic and technological cooperation frameworks rather than confrontational diplomatic processes, making it more difficult for Pakistan and China to oppose such initiatives.
India’s engagement with BRICS and SCO presents both opportunities and challenges for reinforcing bilateral diplomacy. In BRICS, India has successfully maintained its position on terrorism while managing the complex dynamics involving China’s support for Pakistan. However, the SCO presents more complex challenges, as demonstrated by India’s principled refusal to sign joint statements that fail to acknowledge Pakistan-sponsored terrorism.
India’s approach at the 2025 SCO Summit, where it refused to endorse documents that excluded references to the Pahalgam attack, exemplifies its commitment to “zero-tolerance for selective treatment of terror incidents.” India’s strategy involves “maximum engagement with minimum entanglement,” participating actively in areas where concrete benefits can be achieved while maintaining principled positions on core security issues. This includes leveraging SCO’s Regional Anti-Terrorist Structure (RATS) for operational counter-terrorism cooperation while resisting political statements that legitimise Pakistan’s selective approach to terrorism.
India’s concept of strategic autonomy provides the theoretical framework for its multi-forum diplomatic strategy. This approach allows India to engage America, manage China, cultivate Europe, reassure Russia, bring Japan into play, and draw neighbours in while maintaining independent decision-making on core security issues.
The strategy enables India to build diverse coalitions around specific issues rather than seeking comprehensive alignments that might compromise its bilateral framework with Pakistan. Practical applications include India’s ability to work with the United States and European partners on counter-terrorism technology and intelligence sharing while maintaining its position against external mediation in Kashmir. Similarly, India can engage with Russia and China on global governance issues while firmly opposing their support for Pakistan’s terror infrastructure.
Pakistan’s systematic violation of the Shimla Agreement through its maintenance of extensive terror infrastructure has been thoroughly documented. According to the Global Terrorism Index 2025, Pakistan has become the second-most terrorism-affected country, witnessing a 45 percent increase in terrorism-related deaths from 748 in 2023 to 1,081 in 2024. Terror attacks more than doubled from 517 in 2023 to 1,099 in 2024, marking the first year attacks exceeded 1,000 since the index’s inception.
Pakistan’s “terror factory” operates through a sophisticated network where the ISI orchestrates attacks via proxies like Lashkar-e-Taiba, Jaish-e-Mohammed, and Hizbul Mujahideen. The ISI has been covertly running military intelligence programs with terrorist groups, with yearly expenditure toward terrorist organisations running between $125 to $250 million US17. More than 100 insurgent weapon training camps have been identified in Pakistan-occupied Jammu and Kashmir, with the responsibility for managing and conducting training falling under the jurisdiction of two subdivisional branches of ISI.
The April 22, 2025, Pahalgam attack, which killed 26 civilians, exemplifies Pakistan’s strategy of using terrorism to destabilise India while simultaneously claiming commitment to peace. The attack, attributed to The Resistance Front (a LeT front), represented a shift from cross-border attacks to “dividing India from within” through communal targeting.
Former Pakistani leaders have openly admitted this strategy, with ex-Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif hinting at state involvement in the 2008 Mumbai attacks, while General Pervez Musharraf confessed to training militants for proxy war in Kashmir. Most recently, Defense Minister Khawaja Muhammad Asif admitted that Pakistan had supported terror outfits for three decades.
Pakistan’s suspension of the Shimla Agreement in April 2025 represents a strategic miscalculation that removes diplomatic guardrails preventing military escalation. This unilateral action legitimises India’s position that Pakistan cannot be trusted to honour international commitments while maintaining terrorist infrastructure. With the agreement “in abeyance, India is theoretically unconstrained in pursuing punitive measures,” as demonstrated by Operation Sindoor’s successful targeting of nine terrorist training camps. The operation’s international support demonstrates India’s ability to build global consensus against terrorism while maintaining operational flexibility.
Pakistan has initiated a fresh effort to reconstruct terror launchpads and training camps that were decimated during India’s Operation Sindoor. This rebuilding process is receiving full support from Pakistan’s military, the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), and government authorities. The renewed activity is concentrated in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir and nearby areas, particularly along the Line of Control.
Intelligence inputs suggest the creation of smaller, high-tech terror facilities concealed within dense forest regions to escape Indian surveillance. The camps being reconstructed include those previously located in areas such as Luni, Putwal, Tipu Post, Jamil Post, Umranwali, Chaprar Forward, Chhota Chak and Janglora. The ISI is now pursuing a strategy to decentralize its terror training network, with multiple smaller camps, each hosting fewer than 200 operatives, reducing the chances of significant losses in future airstrikes.
India’s diplomatic strategy increasingly focuses on building international understanding for the principle that bilateral disputes require bilateral solutions, particularly when one party engages in systematic terrorism. This approach leverages the growing global consensus on counter-terrorism while positioning the Shimla Agreement as a model for responsible bilateral engagement. At the normative level, India emphasises that ‘terrorism and talks cannot go together,’ establishing a clear linkage between Pakistan’s terror support and the breakdown of bilateral dialogue.
This position gains credibility through India’s consistent demonstration of restraint and its willingness to engage in dialogue when Pakistan takes credible action against terrorism. The international dimension involves building coalitions of like-minded nations that support the principle of bilateral resolution while opposing the use of terrorism as a tool of coercion. India’s success in securing widespread international support for Operation Sindoor, including from the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Israel, the Netherlands, and Panama, demonstrates the potential for building such coalitions.
The path forward requires continued demonstration of India’s commitment to bilateral engagement, coupled with unwavering opposition to terrorism in all its forms. The Shimla Agreement provides the blueprint for this approach, emphasising that “durable peace” can only be achieved through genuine bilateral commitment to peaceful coexistence and mutual respect for sovereignty.
Until Pakistan makes the fundamental choice between its terror proxies and genuine bilateral engagement, the Shimla Agreement remains India’s most effective diplomatic shield against terror-backed coercion and external interference in regional disputes. Pakistan’s deepening strategic alignment with China and its continued reliance on proxy terrorism only reinforce the agreement’s contemporary relevance. As global powers increasingly recognise the destabilising effects of terror-backed coercion, the Shimla Agreement’s bilateral framework offers a principled alternative to externally imposed solutions that often ignore ground realities and victim states’ legitimate security concerns.