OPINION | The Shimla and Karachi Accords: A Look at Pakistan’s Inconsistent Diplomacy

By Ashu Maan

The Legacy of the Karachi Agreement

Seventy-six years after India and Pakistan signed the Karachi Agreement on July 27, 1949, to halt hostilities in Jammu and Kashmir, this historic pact is remembered more for violations than compliance. Initially heralded as a diplomatic milestone and intended to stabilise a region shattered by partition and war, the Karachi Agreement today is a glaring example of Pakistan’s diplomatic duplicity, where selective adherence and overt breaches have repeatedly undermined regional stability.

Under the supervision of the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan (UNCIP) and monitored by the United Nations Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan (UNMOGIP), the Karachi Agreement established a ceasefire line meant to serve as a durable boundary, restraining further escalation. Its precise military provisions, including strict limitations on troop movements and prohibition of military enhancements along the ceasefire line, were designed explicitly to maintain regional peace. Yet Pakistan’s strategic disregard of these conditions reveals an enduring pattern of selective diplomacy.

Repeated Violations and Escalations

Pakistan’s initial major violation occurred in 1965, with the covert initiation of “Operation Gibraltar.” Disguised Pakistani soldiers crossed into Indian-administered Kashmir, aiming to spark rebellion and destabilise Indian governance. Far from igniting popular revolt, the incursion rapidly escalated into the full-scale Indo-Pakistani War of 1965. This action shattered trust and exposed Pakistan’s willingness to disregard international agreements when tactical advantage beckoned.

This disregard intensified in the early 1980s as Pakistan sought to militarise the Siachen Glacier, a remote yet strategically vital region clearly outlined within the Karachi Agreement’s territorial understandings. The glacier, commanding views over vital transit routes, became a bitterly contested high-altitude battlefield, prompting India’s swift military response, Operation Meghdoot. Despite India’s successful defence, the confrontation demonstrated Pakistan’s continued readiness to exploit ambiguity in ceasefire arrangements to further its geopolitical ambitions.

Perhaps most flagrantly, Pakistan’s breach of trust unfolded again in the spring of 1999 during the Kargil conflict. Pakistani forces surreptitiously infiltrated and occupied critical positions along the Indian side of the Line of Control (LoC), directly contravening the Karachi Agreement’s terms and its successor, the 1972 Shimla Agreement. Although the operation ended in Pakistan’s military defeat and international condemnation, it highlighted Islamabad’s persistent strategy of violating agreements while simultaneously invoking international mediation to deflect responsibility.

Low-Intensity Tactics and Strategic Duplicity

Beyond overt military campaigns, Pakistan consistently undermines regional stability through specialised units and shock troops like its Special Services Group (SSG) and Border Action Teams (BAT). These elite formations regularly engage in provocative cross-border incursions designed not only to destabilise Indian frontline positions but also to maintain continuous low-intensity pressure along the LoC. Such actions, typically glossed over diplomatically, clearly violate ceasefire commitments.

More recently, following the deadly terror attacks in Pahalgam in April 2025, Pakistan again exhibited diplomatic duplicity. Despite publicly calling for de-escalation through Operation Sindoor, Pakistani troops promptly resumed ceasefire violations, undermining their diplomatic rhetoric and further eroding bilateral trust.

The Diplomatic Front and International Response

At the diplomatic table, Pakistan’s selective invocation of the outdated Karachi Agreement, despite the Shimla Agreement’s explicit supersession, illustrates its broader strategy. By continuously referencing obsolete UN-mandated agreements, Islamabad deliberately attempts to internationalise the Kashmir issue, circumventing the bilateral negotiations framework clearly established by Shimla. This approach simultaneously enables Pakistan to portray itself internationally as committed to peaceful resolution, while domestically maintaining military provocations.

Western nations, traditionally wary of deepening involvement in the Indo-Pakistani dispute, often opt for cautious neutrality. This diplomatic ambivalence inadvertently emboldens Pakistan, allowing it to perpetuate instability under the cover of selectively observed diplomatic agreements. The lack of robust international accountability reinforces Pakistan’s pattern, ensuring cyclical crises along one of the world’s most dangerous borders.

To disrupt this cycle, the international community must explicitly acknowledge and respond to Pakistan’s strategic duplicity. Firm diplomatic pressure advocating strict adherence to the bilateral framework defined by the Shimla Agreement, rather than tolerating Pakistan’s selective referencing of the obsolete Karachi Agreement, is essential. Until such recognition is explicit, Pakistan’s diplomatic manipulation will persist, perpetuating instability and undermining any hope for genuine regional peace in South Asia.

About Author

Ashu Maan is an Associate Fellow at the Centre for Land Warfare Studies. He was awarded the Vice Chief of the Army Staff Commendation card on Army Day 2025. He is pursuing a PhD from Amity University, Noida, in Defence and Strategic Studies. His research focuses include the India-China territorial dispute, great power rivalry, and Chinese foreign policy.