Pakistan on Thursday retaliated to India’s decision to keep the Indus Waters Treaty in abeyance with the threat of doing the same with all bilateral agreements, including the Simla Agreement that has guided the bilateral relationship since 1972.

The Telegraph spoke to the former Indian high commissioner to Pakistan, Sharat Sabharwal, for an assessment of how this could play out.

Q: What does Pakistan’s announcement that it shall exercise the right to hold all bilateral agreements including the Simla Agreement in abeyance mean on
the ground?

Sabharwal: Most of the measures they have announced, they have basically reciprocated what we have done. The additional measures are the suspension of Afghan trade via the Wagah-Attari border, the closure of Pakistani airspace to Indian aircraft, and the formulation that “we shall exercise the right to hold all bilateral agreements with India, including but not limited to Simla Agreement in abeyance”.

That means they may do it — that is nebulous. It is not clear which agreements they have in mind and whether this includes the military CBMs (confidence-building measures).

Even the Simla Agreement, Pakistan has never adhered to. They have repeatedly violated the two key elements — bilateralism and the sanctity of the Line of Control (LoC). It is an empty threat. Frankly, over the years, the Simla Agreement has lost its value.

Q: Experts say India’s decision to keep the Indus Waters Treaty is also no different as the immediate disruption of water flow to Pakistan is not possible.

Sabharwal: It is still a substantive threat; something we did not do even during the two wars of 1965 and 1971. As a lower riparian state, the treaty is important for them and this will have a psychological impact even if there are no immediate disruptions in water flow.

Q: You mentioned military CBMs.

Sabharwal: Neither side has made any specific mention of them though Pakistan has referred to all bilateral agreements. Fact is, military CBMs help them as much as they help India.

Q: You said the Simla Agreement had lost its value. Still, has it not guided the relationship for over 50 years?

Sabharwal: It did provide sanctity to the LoC though Pakistan kept violating it. Once that goes, then it will be a question of raw power.

Even on bilateralism, another key component of the Agreement, Pakistan repeatedly worked against it by trying to get the US and United Nations Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan to intervene or by raising Kashmir repeatedly at international forums.

Q: How do the two countries dial back from this point?

Sabharwal: It’s a game of coercion; the relationship is at a complete impassé. It has been so for nearly a decade now. It is useful if you can bring the other to submit to a reasonable position. We are on a perennial journey of coercion.