We Backed Terror—For the U.S. | Simla Agreement Is Dead | Kashmir Will Now Go Global

In one explosive interview and series of public statements, Pakistan’s Defence Minister Khawaja Asif shattered three decades-old diplomatic postures. First, he openly confessed that Pakistan had supported terrorism—but not for itself. “We did America’s dirty work,” he said, pointing fingers at decades of Cold War and post-9/11 geopolitics.

Second, he officially declared the 1972 Simla Agreement “a dead document”, erasing the last symbolic thread of bilateralism with India. And third, he announced a dramatic pivot: Kashmir will no longer be treated as a bilateral issue, but one for the global stage—reviving Pakistan’s 1948 demand for international arbitration through the United Nations.

Together, these admissions form a rare moment of raw political truth, dangerous signaling, and shifting alliances—all in the shadow of a potential conflict with India.
In an interview with Sky News journalist Yalda Hakim, Khawaja Asif was asked a direct question:

“Did Pakistan fund, train, and back terror outfits?”
His response was blunt and chilling:
“We have been doing this dirty work for the United States for about three decades... and the West, including Britain.”
This wasn’t just a slip of the tongue. It was a geopolitical confession that echoed decades of criticism from India, Afghanistan, and global intelligence agencies. During the Cold War, Pakistan served as a launchpad for U.S.-backed mujahideen in Afghanistan against Soviet forces. Later, after 9/11, Pakistan was simultaneously a U.S. ally and a suspected safe haven for Taliban and al-Qaeda operatives.

Asif's statement flips Pakistan’s long-standing narrative on its head. For years, Islamabad denied accusations that it supported global jihadist networks. Now, it claims it was compelled to do so—by the U.S.

The cost? Regional instability, a crippled civilian government, global mistrust, and a deeply radicalized society.
Asif himself admitted:
“If we had not joined the war against the Soviet Union and later on the war after 9/11, Pakistan’s track record was unimpeachable.”


Signed in 1972, following India’s victory in the Bangladesh Liberation War, the Simla Agreement was meant to ensure that all India-Pakistan disputes—including Kashmir—would be settled bilaterally, not through international bodies.

It was a diplomatic cornerstone. While India viewed Simla as a safeguard against external interference, Pakistan viewed it as a necessary evil to end its military losses.

But now, according to Asif:
“The Simla Agreement is a dead document. We are back to the 1948 position, when the UN declared the Line of Control a ceasefire line.”

This statement signals a formal rejection of India’s consistent position—that Kashmir is a purely internal matter, and that no third party (including the UN) has jurisdiction. It also lays the foundation for Pakistan’s re-internationalisation of the Kashmir issue—at the United Nations, in world capitals, and possibly in informal global coalitions. This new posture is not sudden. It builds on a long-standing tension that exploded in August 2019, when India revoked Article 370, stripping Jammu and Kashmir of its special constitutional status. For Pakistan, this was a red line. Diplomatic relations were downgraded, trade ties were frozen, and cross-border firing escalated.

Since then, Pakistan has consistently tried to bring Kashmir onto international platforms—including the UN General Assembly, the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), and even the U.S. Congress. But India’s firm rejection and global hesitancy to interfere have largely kept it a bilateral issue—until now.

Asif’s declaration appears to abandon that caution:
“Going forward, these disputes will be dealt with multilaterally or internationally.”

Effectively, Pakistan is reverting to its original 1948 stance, seeking global arbitration or intervention—most likely under UN Security Council Resolutions that called for a plebiscite in Kashmir, a position India has long considered outdated and irrelevant. Alongside this diplomatic upheaval came a thinly veiled nuclear warning.

Pakistan, said Asif, remains on “high alert” and would only consider using nuclear weapons if there is a “direct threat to our existence.”
Though he clarified that nuclear war is not imminent, the statement adds volatility to an already tense situation. Notably, Asif confirmed that Pakistan has briefed key allies—including China, Gulf countries, the UK, and the U.S.

“Some of our friends in the Arabian Gulf have talked to both sides,” Asif said.
China has called for restraint, and the U.S., according to him, has so far chosen to “stay away.”
This coordinated messaging suggests that Pakistan is preparing a diplomatic offensive, while keeping its military posture ambiguous. India has not yet officially responded to Asif’s remarks, but its long-held stance remains unchanged: Kashmir is an internal matter, and there is no scope for international intervention.

But Pakistan’s pivot could complicate that position. Even if the world doesn’t take sides, growing international noise—especially from China, Turkey, and some Gulf voices—could muddy diplomatic waters. And Asif’s terror confession might ironically backfire: while it attempts to justify Pakistan’s past, it also confirms India’s long-standing accusations of cross-border militancy.

More dangerously, the nuclear undertone, combined with a volatile LoC and rising extremism in Pakistan’s own political climate, could push the subcontinent into unpredictable territory. In less than a week, Khawaja Asif dismantled the central tenets of Pakistan’s public diplomacy:

• That it was never complicit in terrorism — disproven by his own words.
• That it honors bilateral agreements like Simla — declared “dead.”
• That Kashmir could still be handled quietly — now openly internationalised.

Whether this signals a strategic realignment or diplomatic desperation remains to be seen. But one thing is clear: the era of diplomatic pretense is over. Pakistan has admitted its past, renounced its bilateral future, and lit the fuse for a much more global, and potentially explosive, Kashmir dispute.

Explore the latest trends and tips in Health & Fitness, Travel, Life Hacks, Fashion & Beauty, and Relationships at Times Life!