LK INNOVATE

Dr. Lokman Khan

South Asia in 2025 finds itself once again in a diplomatic storm. In the wake of the recent killing of tourists in Kashmir’s Pahalgam, India has suspended the Indus Waters Treaty, and in retaliation, Pakistan has announced the suspension of the Shimla Agreement. Yet in this high-stakes game of diplomacy between two nuclear powers, a third party—Bangladesh—remains in the shadows, despite the fact that its very birth and post-war identity are intimately tied to this treaty. This is thus an opportune moment to revisit the Shimla Agreement’s history and re-examine its implications for Bangladesh today.

A Bridge from 1971 to Shimla

The Shimla Agreement, signed on 2 July 1972 by Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi and Pakistani President Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, emerged from the ashes of the 1971 Bangladesh Liberation War and the subsequent Indo-Pakistan war. At its heart, the agreement was a pledge by both nations to resolve all bilateral disputes peacefully and exclusively through mutual dialogue.

For India, the agreement was a diplomatic triumph—it effectively sidelined Pakistan’s efforts to internationalize the Kashmir dispute and designated the ceasefire line in Kashmir as the Line of Control (LoC).

Bangladesh’s Place: Unspoken, Yet Foundational

Although Bangladesh was not formally named in the Shimla Agreement, its very context signified a tacit Pakistani acceptance of Bangladesh’s independence. This led to the Delhi Agreement of August 1973, where Pakistan formally recognized Bangladesh and arrangements were made for the release of prisoners of war. Thus, for Bangladesh, the Shimla Agreement was a foundational moment in its post-independence diplomatic integration and security framework.

The Present Crisis: Water Treaty vs. Shimla

As India suspended the Indus Waters Treaty in response to the Pahalgam killings, Pakistan retaliated by suspending the Shimla Agreement. This tit-for-tat has deepened uncertainties not only in India-Pakistan relations but also in the regional balance of power.

Simultaneously, relations between Pakistan and Bangladesh have been uneasy in recent years—disagreements over the prosecution of 1971 war crimes, Pakistan’s hesitance to engage diplomatically, and issues related to trade and migration have all strained bilateral ties. The suspension of Shimla casts a long shadow over an already fractured regional structure.

What Does This Mean for Bangladesh?

1. Diplomatic Risks:
   If the Shimla Agreement is permanently scrapped, one of the key pillars of the post-1971 regional order collapses. Pakistan may begin to question or undermine its recognition of Bangladesh, creating room for revisionist narratives.
2. Security Concerns:
   If the legal status of the LoC becomes ambiguous, a broader regional destabilization could follow. Jihadist movements, illegal crossings, and instability in areas such as the Chittagong Hill Tracts and coastal waters may rise.
3. Economic Impact:
   If India-Pakistan transit corridors are disrupted, Bangladesh’s connectivity via road, rail, and energy networks may suffer. Additionally, regional forums like SAARC and BIMSTEC may become even more dysfunctional.
4. Legal and Humanitarian Repercussions:
   Justice and cooperation related to 1971 war crimes, the return of missing persons, and the rehabilitation of stranded Pakistanis could be significantly delayed or derailed.

Kashmir—A New Uncertainty

With the suspension of the Shimla Agreement, Pakistan may once again seek international mediation on Kashmir, potentially at forums like the UN Security Council or OIC. This would undermine India’s long-standing bilateral approach to Kashmir.

Furthermore, a rise in skirmishes along the LoC could inflict additional damage on Kashmir’s already fragile tourism-driven economy and deepen civilian distress in the region.

What Is the Way Forward?

There is now an urgent need for a renewed process of trust-building. A trilateral cooperation framework among India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh in areas like water sharing, counterterrorism, and economic integration must be explored.

If formal diplomacy proves difficult, “Track II diplomacy”—involving retired diplomats, journalists, and scholars—could create channels for communication. Moreover, increasing people-to-people contact, building economic interdependence, and jointly drafting a new regional peace compact would contribute to long-term stability.

Conclusion

The Shimla Agreement is more than just a bilateral pact between India and Pakistan—it is a foundational pillar of post-1971 South Asian order. Its suspension reminds us that even if a treaty is bilateral, its implications can be deeply regional.

Bangladesh was born out of a historical consensus and immense sacrifice. To ignore that legacy is to risk pushing South Asia back into the vicious cycles of its past. Whether the Shimla Agreement is revived or rewritten, Bangladesh and Kashmir—two regions shaped by 1971—stand to lose the most unless a new roadmap for confidence and cooperation is drawn.

30 April 2025