Pakistan’s Double Standards The Excelsior 27 Jul 2025 Maj Gen Harsha Kakar
https://www.dailyexcelsior.com/pakistans-double-standards/
Pakistan’s Double Standards The Excelsior 27 Jul 2025
27th July is the anniversary of the Karachi agreement, the first inked between India and Pakistan. This was a military level understanding, signed in 1949, mediated by the UN, intending to formalize the ceasefire line between the two nations, post the first Indo-Pak war in 1947-48. This was followed by other agreements including the Shimla agreement of 1972 and the Lahore declaration of 1999. While India has adhered to these agreements, Pakistan violates them, blaming India for the same. Indian retaliation to Pakistan’s violations has always been ‘proportionate.’
The Karachi agreement delineated the line of control at that time and established protocols for monitoring ceasefire violations. However, it was a military-level arrangement, not a full-fledged bilateral political treaty, and its relevance diminished after subsequent wars and political agreements.
The intent of the Karachi agreement was to establish conditions for the deployment of UNMOGIP (UN Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan). Over the years, with agreements being violated by Pakistan, UNMOGIP has lost its relevance. It is no longer an institution accepted by India.
Even the Indus Water Treaty, inked in 1961, biased towards Pakistan, was based on the premise that the two nations would grow peacefully and remain friendly to one another. It remained in place during all conflicts despite Pak being the initiator. Pahalgam was the last straw. India’s current decision is aimed at pushing Pak to adhere to what it has inked in agreements thus far.
Pakistan has attempted to exploit the Karachi agreement to assert its claims over Kashmir, ignoring the fact that the agreement was a military one, inked with the intent of stopping the conflict and had nothing to do with the status of J and K. The first major political agreement between the two sides on Kashmir was the Shimla agreement of 1972.
The Shimla agreement not only converted the ceasefire line into the Line of Control (LoC) but also explicitly bound both countries to resolve issues bilaterally without any third-party intervention. Clause (ii) of the agreement clearly states: ‘That the two countries are resolved to settle their differences by peaceful means through bilateral negotiations or by any other peaceful means mutually agreed upon between them.’
This was reinstated by the Lahore declaration, signed between PM’s Vajpayee and Nawaz Sharief on 21st Feb 1999, during Vajpayee’s visit to Lahore. It mentions, ‘Reiterating the determination of both countries to implementing the Simla Agreement in letter and spirit,’ implying that all issues remain bilateral and no other nation or institution has any role to play in the process. Both these agreements overrode the UNSC resolution on Kashmir.
The Lahore declaration also mentioned ‘durable peace and development of harmonious relations.’ However, Pakistan’s army chief, General Musharraf, had already commenced operations in Kargil, aware that it meant breaking the recently inked agreement. Pakistan signals peace and tranquillity with one hand while launching military operations and supporting terrorism with the other, all of which goes against the spirit of agreements.
Pakistan has also repeatedly been attempting to internationalise the Kashmir issue, seeking intervention from the United Nations, the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation and even lobbying Western powers. This also goes against the understanding reached between the two countries which has insisted that all issues are bilateral. India’s stand on Kashmir has been firmly conveyed to the world.
This double face of Pakistan was also evident when India revoked Article 370 in August 2019. Pakistan cried foul, claiming India had violated international and bilateral agreements, whereas it was an internal matter. India’s firm stance on it being an internal matter and in no way altered the LoC or violated the Shimla Agreement was globally accepted. Pakistan’s attempt to approach the UN, OIC, and other global platforms, only bounced back with none standing beside Pak.
Pakistan’s selective exploitation of historical agreements has not gone unnoticed by the global community. Countries around the world, including the United States as also others have repeatedly acknowledged the bilateral nature of Kashmir as laid out in multiple political agreements. Even the United Nations has refrained from active involvement, citing the need for mutual dialogue between India and Pakistan.
Post Pahalgam and India placing the Indus Water Treaty in abeyance, Pakistan attempted to play up the UNSC resolution but to no avail. It will ultimately have to come to the table with India after meeting conditions which it has itself accepted in multiple agreements inked between the two nations, commencing from the Karachi agreement to the Lahore declaration.
Islamabad’s repeated violations — ranging from military intrusions to support for terrorism — have gradually stripped it of the moral high ground it once claimed. The world sees through the inconsistency: a nation that wants to be seen as a peace-seeking state cannot continue to abet violence and break promises enshrined in formal bilateral treaties. The latest example of Pakistan’s duplicity is its foreign minister, Ishaq Dar again invoking resolution of Kashmir through the UNSC resolution. Once again there was no support from other states.
If Pakistan is serious about peace and resolution of long-standing issues, it must abandon its policy of selective adherence to past agreements. The Karachi Agreement is a relic of the past, superseded and nullified by the Shimla Agreement and Lahore declaration. Islamabad’s obsession with invoking outdated accords while ignoring more relevant and binding ones exposes its lop-sided thinking.
India has consistently upheld its commitment to bilateralism and peaceful dialogue as laid out in the Shimla Agreement. The onus is now on Pakistan to restore its diplomatic credibility by doing the same. Until then, its narrative will continue to be seen as hypocritical, undermining not just trust with India, but also its reputation on the global stage.