Pakistan Risks Economic And Diplomatic Isolation By Abandoning Shimla Agreement – OpEd
Following the 1971 Indo-Pakistani War, which led to the creation of Bangladesh, the prime ministers of India and Pakistan signed the Shimla Agreement on July 2, 1972. This agreement aimed to normalise relations and establish a framework for peace and cooperation. The agreement emphasised the peaceful resolution of disputes through bilateral dialogue and respecting each other’s territorial integrity and sovereignty.
However, this April, following a terror attack on 26 innocent tourists in Kashmir’s Pahalgam, the Indian government responded by suspending the Indus Water Treaty of 1960. In a tit-for-tat move, Pakistan retaliated by suspending the Shimla Agreement and severing trade ties with India.
But, Pakistan should honour the Shimla Agreement because it provides a framework for the peaceful resolution of disputes and normalisation of relations with India, and it was a commitment made by both nations. Abandoning the agreement risks escalating tensions, hindering diplomatic solutions, and undermining the progress made towards a more stable relationship.
The agreement serves as a cornerstone for managing India-Pakistan relations, providing a structure for resolving disputes through peaceful means, including bilateral negotiations. It explicitly states the commitment to settle differences through peaceful means, which is vital for preventing further conflict and fostering a more stable relationship.
Abandoning the agreement could dismantle key diplomatic safeguards, potentially leading to a more volatile and unpredictable situation. It risks escalating tensions, particularly in the context of recent events, such as the Pahalgam attack and subsequent actions. It hinders any potential for dialogue and negotiation, making it harder to address the underlying issues that contribute to conflict.
It can also negatively impact Pakistan’s international standing and credibility, potentially undermining its efforts to engage in constructive diplomacy. Prioritising the agreement promotes a focus on peace and stability in the region, which is in the best interest of both nations, especially Pakistan, as war with India would incur significant economic, social, and political costs. It will hinder Pakistan’s development and stability.
War would require Pakistan to divert substantial resources from crucial sectors, such as infrastructure, education, and healthcare, towards military spending. It would deter foreign investment and disrupt supply chains, hindering economic growth. Instability and conflict would discourage tourism, a significant source of revenue for Pakistan. War could exacerbate existing social and political divisions within Pakistan, leading to further unrest and instability.
Pakistan has already fought three full-scale wars and two limited conflicts (Op Vijay and Op Sindoor) and faced defeat every time. Its economy has always taken a huge beating. The Indo-Pakistan wars of 1965 and 1971, as well as the Kargil conflict of 1999, significantly impacted Pakistan’s economy, leading to increased defence spending, economic instability, and hindering long-term development. These conflicts led to a redirection of financial resources towards military needs, which affected investments in social and economic development, potentially slowing GDP growth.
Most recently, following the defeat at the hands of India during Operation Sindoor, the Pakistan government increased its defence spending by 20%. To fund this, the country has reportedly slashed overall federal expenditure by 7%, with some reports suggesting cuts in health and education budgets. This reallocation of funds has drawn criticism, particularly given Pakistan’s existing economic challenges and the pressing needs of its population in areas such as health and education.
It is also pertinent to note that Pakistan’s selective adherence to bilateral and international agreements with India, specifically disregarding the Shimla Agreement while invoking others, such as the Karachi Agreement and the Indus Waters Treaty, is perceived as a deliberate attempt to erode regional trust and create instability. This approach undermines the principles of bilateralism and peaceful resolution of disputes that are central to the Shimla Agreement.
The Karachi Agreement established the ceasefire line in Kashmir, and the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) governs the sharing of water resources between India and Pakistan. By disregarding the Shimla Agreement and selectively invoking other agreements, Pakistan creates an environment of distrust and uncertainty in the region.
This undermines the potential for the peaceful resolution of disputes and can escalate tensions between the two countries, which harms Pakistan more in the long run than India. Hence, Pakistan should stop being a hypocrite and accept the reality that it can’t compete and win against India in any aspect.
It should make peace with this reality and follow what Indian External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar recently said: “At the end of the day, the logic every one of our neighbours must realise is that working with India will give you benefits, and not working with India has a cost.”
Like what you read?
Please consider supporting Eurasia Review. Thank you for your consideration!
