Navigate bilateral diplomacy in Pakistan’s terror infrastructure

The 1972 Shimla Agreement represents a fundamental diplomatic framework that continues to shape South Asian geopolitics. However, its core principles face systemic erosion from Pakistan’s enduring commitment to terrorism as Scraff. Given U.S. President Donald Trump’s claim to mediate Indian-Pakistan peace, it is crucial to study how the bilateral framework of this historical agreement remains relevant and under Siege.

The agreement highlights the sharp contrast between the continued use of terrorist agents through bilateral negotiations and Pakistan’s continued use of terrorist agents, which makes the conditions for India’s participation make it necessary not only for strategic preferences but for regional stability. The recent speech by Pakistan’s de facto ruler is the self-proclaimed Marshal Asim Munir of the Naval Academy, a solution issued by Jamu and Kashmir (J&K) under the UN framework, which only puts a permanent deadlock in trouble.

Genesis and the lasting geopolitical architecture

On July 2, 1972, signed by Prime Minister Indira Gandhi and President Zulfika Ali Bhutto, the Shimla Agreement stood out from India’s decisive victory in the 1971 war. The agreement identifies several transformative principles: converting the ceasefire line into a line of control (LOC), neither side seeking unilateral changes, promising “to resolve their differences through peaceful means through bilateral negotiations” and, crucially, excluding third-party mediation.

The geopolitical significance of the agreement goes beyond post-war arrangements. It determined that Kashmir would be a bilateral issue between India and Pakistan, excluding third-party intervention, a principle that remains at the heart of India’s diplomatic strategy. India has shown a huge impact by returning more than 13,000 square kilometers of capturing territory while retaining strategic areas including Turtuk and Chalunka, which shows that it expresses its commitment to peace within a framework of mutual respect.

The bilateral framework achieves a variety of strategic purposes: to prevent the internationalization of Kashmir disputes, to keep Indian agents in conflict resolution, and to ensure dialogue resolves root causes rather than superficial symptoms. Together with the Indus Water Treaty, the Shimla Agreement became the cornerstone of managing conflicts, promoting dialogue and avoiding large-scale wars.

Pakistan’s terrorist ecosystem: Systems violate Shimla principles

Pakistan’s attitude toward the Shimla Agreement is characterized by a violation of ongoing violations, which maintains a broad terrorist infrastructure directly violates the agreement’s commitment to peaceful coexistence. Intelligence assessments show that Pakistan may be the world’s most active terrorist organization sponsor, and its Inter-Service Intelligence (ISI) provides systematic support for designated terrorist organizations.

The scale of Pakistan’s terrorist operations is shocking. According to the Global Terrorism Index in 2025, Pakistan has become the second country affected by terrorism, and witnesses have witnessed a Increased by 45% Among the deaths related to terrorism, there were 748 people in 2023 to 1,081 in 2024. The terrorist attacks have more than doubled from 517 people in 2023 to 1,099 in 2024, the first year since the index was launched.

Pakistan’s terrorist factories operated through a complex network, and ISI attacked through agents such as Lashkar-e-Taiba (Let), Jaish-e-Mohammed (Jem) and Hizbul Mujahideen. The entrusted headquarters of Muridke and Jem strongholds in Bahawalpur operated near military facilities, highlighting institutional accomplices. These groups receive funding through former organizations, allowing us to raise funds using the Jamaat-ud-Dawa and Falah-e-Insaniat Foundations under the guise of social work.

On April 22, 2025, Pahalgam attacks killed 25 tourists and local pony riding operators, reflecting Pakistan’s strategy of using terrorism to undermine India while claiming a commitment to peace. The attack was attributed to the Let Front, representing a transition from a cross-border attack to a split from an internal to a public target.

The former Pakistani leader publicly acknowledged the strategy. Former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif hints about the state’s involvement in the 2008 Mumbai attacks, while General Pervez Musharraf admitted to being trained in the proxy war in Kashmir. Recently, Defense Minister Khawaja Muhammad Asif admitted that Pakistan has provided support for terrorist clothing for thirty years.

Non-negotiable conditions in India: Basic prerequisites for regional security

The conditions for India’s bilateral interaction stem from decades of experience in Pakistan’s repeated diplomatic attitudes. The current policy framework articulated by Foreign Ministry spokesman Randhir Jaiswal is uncompromising: “Terrorism and negotiation cannot be integrated.”

India’s non-negotiable prerequisites include: demolishing the terrorist infrastructure of Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (POK), handing over designated terrorists whose list is provided to Pakistan, cessing cross-border terrorism, and recognizing that any Kashmir discussion will be concentrated on non-vaccinated non-sales territory and focusing it on Indian territory.

These conditions are not requirements to the greatest extent, but are fundamental prerequisites for sustainable peace. As Prime Minister Modi stressed, terror and negotiation cannot be integrated, terror and trade cannot be integrated, and water and blood cannot be integrated. The suspension of the Indian Waters Treaty has been suspended until Pakistan reliably irrevocably supports its support for cross-border terrorism.

India’s insistence on bilateral participation without third-party mediation reflects both the provisions of the Shimla Agreement and the provisions of strategic wisdom. Foreign Minister S Jaishankar has always insisted: “India has been very clear for 40 years and we will not accept mediation.” This position ensures that India retains institutions in resolving issues related to terrorism while preventing disputes in internationalization in Pakistan.

The bilateral framework has prevented the internationalization of the Kashmir dispute that Pakistan has been seeking. It maintains strategic autonomy in managing regional security challenges and ensures meaningful dialogue resolves the root causes of conflict rather than plastic surgery. Trump’s recent claims about mediation between India and Pakistan fundamentally distort the reality that on May 10, 2025, a ceasefire was reached through direct dialogue between existing military channels.

Contemporary relevance and strategic significance

Pakistan’s announcement of the suspension of the Shimla agreement in April 2025 was a strategic miscalculation that eliminated diplomatic guardrails to prevent military escalation. This unilateral action legitimizes India’s position that Pakistan cannot believe in respecting international commitments while maintaining the terrorist infrastructure.

Suspension has a profound impact. With the shelved agreement, India is unrestricted in taking punitive measures, as evidenced by Operation Sindor’s successful targets against nine terrorist training camps. This also means that the sacredness of the Line of Control (LOC) has lost its sacredness. The international support of the operation demonstrates India’s ability to build a global consensus on terrorism while maintaining operational flexibility.

India does not accept the development theory of terrorism as proxy war, but rather the war itself, indicating that future responses will be faster and faster than they have been so far. Since India’s ranks, India has not distinguished between terrorism and war. While avoiding escalation, the success of the operation has set a new gold standard for legitimate counter-terrorism operations while dismantling terrorist infrastructure.

The Shimla Agreement remains a framework that emphasizes bilateral participation in international mediation, but its principles can only be realized if both sides show a genuine commitment to peace. Pakistan’s ongoing support for terrorism fundamentally violates the core provisions of the agreement on peaceful coexistence and territorial integrity.

The conditions of participation in India represent the basic prerequisite for sustainable peace, not the maximum requirement. The demolition of Pakistan’s terrorist infrastructure is not negotiable because terrorism and diplomacy cannot coexist. Unless Pakistan reliably dismantles its terrorist infrastructure and ceases cross-border terrorism, India’s status as “negotiation without terror stop” remains in principle and strategically justified.

End of the article