New Delhi: Among other measures Pakistan announced on Thursday (April 24) in response to India’s diplomatic action against Islamabad in the Pahalgam terror attack‘s wake is a declaration that it “shall exercise” its right to put on hold the Simla Agreement which both sides signed in 1972.But what is the agreement about, and will a Pakistani withdrawal from it have any effect on bilateral relations as they stand today?What has Pakistan said?Delhi on Wednesday had said that the “cross-border linkages of the terrorist attack” – in which a group of gunmen killed 26 civilians in Jammu and Kashmir – had been “brought out” and effected a number of diplomatic measures against Pakistan, including a unilateral suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty.Islamabad in its retaliatory move said that in light of “reckless and irresponsible” Indian behaviour, Pakistan “shall exercise the right to hold all bilateral agreements with India including but not limited to Simla Agreement in abeyance”.It would keep these agreements on hold until “India desists from its manifested behaviour of fomenting terrorism inside Pakistan; trans-national killings; and non-adherence to international law and UN resolutions on Kashmir”, its National Security Committee decided.What is the agreement about?After Islamabad’s defeat in the 1971 Indo-Pakistani War, amid which Bangladesh broke away from Pakistan with India’s support, Prime Minister Indira Gandhi and Pakistani President Zulfikar Bhutto signed the Simla Agreement on July 2, 1972. It is a short pact comprising five broad areas of agreement between the two sides.Most importantly, the Agreement establishes the Line of Control (LoC) and declares that India and Pakistan will resolve differences through bilateral negotiations.Both sides had also agreed to withdraw their forces to their respective sides, maintain peaceful relations and hold talks on repatriating prisoners of war as well as resuming diplomatic relations.What does it say about the LoC?India and Pakistan after the invasion of Jammu and Kashmir by Pathan tribesmen with Pakistani support and the subsequent First Indo-Pakistani War were separated in the region by a UN-mediated ceasefire line created in July 1949.Both sides made small gains along the ceasefire line during the 1971 war, causing it to become slightly altered.The Simla Agreement states that“In Jammu and Kashmir, the line of control resulting from the cease-fire of December 17, 1971 shall be respected by both sides without prejudice to the recognised position of either side.Neither side shall seek to alter it unilaterally, irrespective of mutual differences and legal interpretations. Both sides further undertake to refrain from the threat or the use of force in violation of this Line.”In doing so it established the LoC as the de facto border between the two sides in Jammu and Kashmir.What does it say about resolving disputes through bilateral negotiations?In Shimla the two sides had also “resolved to settle their differences by peaceful means through bilateral negotiations or by any other peaceful means mutually agreed upon between them”.“Pending the final settlement of any of the problems between the two countries, neither side shall unilaterally alter the situation and both shall prevent the organisation, assistance or encouragement of any acts detrimental to the maintenance of peaceful and harmonious relations,” adds the agreement.Having grown wary of third party-mediation in Kashmir, this aspect of the agreement reflects India’s desire to thenceforth limit the nature of the dispute to a solely bilateral matter.What would a Pakistani withdrawal from the agreement mean?What it could mean for the LoCIt has been noted that any decision by Pakistan to put the Simla Agreement on hold would come against the backdrop of the LoC having endured despite multiple conflicts and skirmishes since the pact came into force close to 53 years ago, including the Kargil War in 1999.Some have said that Islamabad’s putting the agreement in abeyance could come as a signal that it does not consider itself obligated to respect the LoC, and that this could lead to India stating that it is also no longer required to do this.Delhi did not officially respond to Pakistan’s retaliatory measures on Thursday, but in a background note circulated among journalists government “sources” said that “now India can also cross the LoC”.The move could also be a way for Islamabad to signal its stance that Pakistan – which had signed Simla after a defeat on the battlefield – is not a subdued nation anymore.At any rate, the agreement has not stopped either side from breaching the LoC, including India in 2016 and 2019, both of which occurred after fatal militant attacks in Jammu and Kashmir. And these were just operations the Modi government publicised; troops under earlier Indian governments had also crossed the LoC to undertake covert punitive expeditions.What it could mean for Kashmir as a bilateral issueIn the years leading up to the pact in July 1972, the UN Security Council (UNSC) had issued 18 resolutions on the Kashmir conflict, including one in April 1948 which recommended that both sides create the conditions for conducting a plebiscite to determine which side Jammu and Kashmir would accede to.India has since 1972 has maintained that the Simla Agreement’s focus on bilateralism supersedes the Kashmir conflict’s internationalisation’ via UNSC resolutions.It has on various occasions invoked the Simla Agreement and reiterated its stance that the conflict is a bilateral issue, including when US President Donald Trump claimed in 2019 that Prime Minister Narendra Modi asked him to play mediator.However, Pakistan has rejected the view that Simla supersedes the UNSC’s resolutions on Kashmir and has endorsed the security council’s resolutions relating to the dispute, pointing as security scholar Rahul Roy-Choudhury has recalled to the fact that the Agreement states the “principles and purposes” of the UN charter shall “govern the relations between the two countries”.Accordingly, Pakistan in the event of a pull-out could continue to seek third-party involvement in Kashmir as it has done in the past, but India will likely continue to resist such attempts.Can Pakistan actually pull out of the treaty?Simla does not have a provision for either party to withdraw from the agreement or to put it in ‘abeyance’, which is a less formal move than legal suspension and which is what Pakistan has proposed to do.The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties says that when a treaty between two party countries does not contain provisions to denounce or withdraw from it, parties may not do so unless(a) it is established that the parties intended to admit the possibility of denunciation or withdrawal; or(b) a right of denunciation or withdrawal may be implied by the nature of the treatyHowever, Pakistan has signed but not ratified the Vienna Convention, and India has not even signed it.