The Futility of Any Agreement with Pakistan: A Critical Perspective

The Futility of Any Agreement with Pakistan: A Critical Perspective

25 Apr,2025 05:21 PM, by: Super Admin
5 minute read Total views: 375

0 Like 0.0

Facebook Twitter Google + Linkedin

When it comes to dealing with Pakistan, many believe that India has, time and time again, pursued peace initiatives that have failed to deliver lasting results. From the Shimla Agreement (1972) to more recent attempts at dialogue, the track record of agreements with Pakistan is fraught with unfulfilled promises, broken commitments, and continued hostility. Given this historical context, the question arises: is there any value in continuing to pursue agreements with Pakistan? A critical analysis suggests that it might be time for India to nullify past agreements and rethink its approach to Pakistan.

Historical Context of India-Pakistan Agreements

From the very outset of India’s independence, the relationship between the two nations has been dominated by conflict, particularly over the Kashmir dispute, which has led to several wars, skirmishes, and decades of diplomatic tension. Despite numerous efforts at peace, Pakistan’s actions have undermined the spirit of any agreement. Some of the most notable agreements between the two countries include:

The Tashkent Agreement (1966): Signed after the Indo-Pakistani War of 1965, the agreement sought to restore diplomatic relations and establish peace. Pakistan’s violation of the agreement’s terms, particularly its failure to return Indian prisoners of war on time, set the tone for future dealings.
The Shimla Agreement (1972): Signed after the 1971 Indo-Pakistani War, the Shimla Agreement was hailed as a diplomatic breakthrough. However, its core tenets—such as the bilateral resolution of disputes and the reaffirmation of the Line of Control (LoC)—did not result in long-term peace. Pakistan’s continued support of militancy in Kashmir has shown that the Kashmir issue remains unresolved and unresolved issues persist even today.
The Lahore Declaration (1999): Intended to improve relations and reduce the risk of nuclear conflict, this agreement fell apart after Pakistan’s infiltration of Kargil, violating the spirit of the peace agreement.

The Recurring Problem: Pakistan’s Deceptive Tactics

Every time an agreement is reached, the question arises: does Pakistan genuinely want peace with India? The answer, as the history of these agreements suggests, is often no. Pakistan has repeatedly demonstrated that it is not interested in lasting peace but in perpetuating the conflict. Key factors contributing to this perspective include:

Pakistan's Support for Militancy: One of the most glaring betrayals by Pakistan has been its support for cross-border terrorism in Kashmir. Despite multiple peace agreements, Pakistan has consistently provided shelter, funding, and training to terrorist groups operating in India, particularly in Kashmir. The most notable example is the 1999 Kargil conflict, which occurred just after the Lahore Declaration.
Non-Adherence to Agreements: Pakistan has a long history of non-compliance with agreements. The Shimla Agreement, for example, was intended to settle the Kashmir dispute bilaterally, but Pakistan’s actions have continuously contradicted the spirit of the agreement. The Kashmir issue remains unresolved because of Pakistan’s consistent refusal to acknowledge the LoC as the final border. This undercuts any meaningful dialogue and makes the terms of agreements ineffective.
The Kashmir Issue: At the core of Pakistan’s foreign policy lies the Kashmir dispute, and Pakistan has used it as a tool for domestic political gain and international propaganda. Even as India has shown a willingness to engage in dialogue, Pakistan has often demanded third-party intervention and refused to accept the LoC as the de facto boundary. This refusal has ensured that the Kashmir dispute remains intractable and continuously unresolved.
Internal Political Dynamics in Pakistan: Many political analysts argue that Pakistan’s military establishment, which wields significant power over foreign policy, does not want peace with India. A stable relationship with India could limit Pakistan’s ability to use the Kashmir issue to unite the people under the banner of nationalism. Moreover, a peaceful relationship would limit the justification for the military’s role in Pakistani politics, which has historically relied on the India threat to maintain its relevance.

The Strategic Misstep of Engaging with Pakistan

Given Pakistan's consistent failure to honor agreements and its ongoing support of terrorism, India’s pursuit of peace with Pakistan is increasingly being seen as a strategic misstep. The repeated attempts at dialogue and peacebuilding seem to lack any real long-term benefits for India, while Pakistan benefits by gaining diplomatic leverage and continuing its destabilizing activities in Kashmir.

Economic and Military Growth in India: India has evolved as a global economic powerhouse and a rising military force. The notion that India still needs to engage with Pakistan diplomatically is questionable, especially as Pakistan remains mired in economic instability and political turmoil. The focus for India should be on internal growth, regional alliances, and global diplomacy, rather than exhausting resources on a non-viable peace process with Pakistan.
Increasing International Isolation of Pakistan: Pakistan’s reputation on the global stage is increasingly tarnished, particularly due to its ties with terrorist organizations and its role in regional instability. India, on the other hand, has forged stronger relationships with global powers, especially the United States, Russia, and China. The changing geopolitics of the region means India can achieve its national security goals without being tethered to Pakistan.
Military Deterrence Over Diplomatic Engagement: India’s strategic shift should be towards strong military deterrence rather than futile diplomatic engagements. The idea of military preparedness as a deterrent is far more effective in ensuring Pakistan’s understanding that it cannot afford to engage in aggression. India’s nuclear capability and advanced military technology provide a much stronger guarantee of security than repeated agreements with a state that does not uphold its commitments.

The Case for Nullifying the Shimla Agreement in the Wake of the Pahalgam Attack

The recent Pahalgam attack in Kashmir, where innocent civilians were targeted in a senseless act of violence, has once again highlighted the harsh reality of the ongoing conflict between India and Pakistan. This tragic incident serves as a painful reminder that despite numerous peace agreements and diplomatic attempts, Pakistan continues its support for cross-border terrorism, destabilizing not just Kashmir, but the entire region. Given this persistent pattern of aggression, it is time for India to consider nullifying the Shimla Agreement and any other past peace treaties with Pakistan.

Military’s dominance in Pakistan from Rawalpindi, is a significant obstacle to any lasting agreements or reforms. As long as the military establishment, under leaders like General Asim Munir, continues to prioritize its own relevance, the political landscape will remain influenced by the interests of the armed forces, rather than by the civilian government or broader national needs. This perpetuates a cycle where civilian governments are unable to fully assert themselves, leaving the military to control the narrative and influence the country's direction.

Rethinking India’s Strategy

It is time for India to rethink its strategy with respect to Pakistan. The historical evidence suggests that agreements with Pakistan are futile—they are broken, exploited, and ultimately lead nowhere. Rather than investing energy in future agreements, India should focus on asserting its own security through military strength, regional influence, and strategic alliances. Continuing to engage with Pakistan diplomatically, in the face of its hostile actions, only perpetuates the cycle of conflict and undermines India’s position.

India’s priorities should lie in strengthening its internal capabilities, defending its territorial integrity, and ensuring the long-term stability of the region. This could be the way forward, leaving past agreements behind and adopting a more realistic and self-reliant approach to dealing with Pakistan.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author's. They do not purport to reflect the opinions or views of The Critical Script or its editor.