Information and data included in the blog are for educational & non-commercial purposes only and have been carefully adapted, excerpted, or edited from reliable and accurate sources. All copyrighted material belongs to respective owners and is provided only for wider dissemination.
My article published on the IIRF and “Life of Soldier” website on 08 May 25.
“While most nations have an army, in Pakistan, the army has a nation.”
— Widely cited in analyses of Pakistan’s civil-military ties
Pakistan, a nation born from the aspirations of a free and prosperous Muslim homeland, finds itself trapped in a cycle of stagnation and regression. The title “Pakistan’s Backwards March” encapsulates a grim reality: a country with immense potential is being held hostage by its power structures, particularly the omnipresent influence of its military establishment. Led by the generals, this march backwards is a betrayal of the nation’s founding ideals and a burden borne disproportionately by its people. Understanding the historical and contemporary dynamics of military dominance reveals that Pakistan’s elusive path toward a more democratic and equitable future can only be charted by its citizens. However, the time for this charting is not just now, but now or never.
The Generals’ Grip: A Historical Perspective
Since its inception in 1947, Pakistan’s military has positioned itself as the ultimate arbiter of the nation’s destiny. The country’s early years were marked by political instability, with weak civilian governments unable to consolidate power. This vacuum allowed the military to subtly and overtly step in as the self-proclaimed guardian of national interests. The first military coup in 1958, led by General Ayub Khan, set a precedent that still haunts Pakistan. Subsequent coups under Yahya Khan, Zia-ul-Haq, and Pervez Musharraf entrenched the military’s role as the dominant force in politics.
The military’s justification for its interventions has often been cloaked in the rhetoric of stability and security. Pakistan’s volatile geopolitical environment has been cited as a reason for the need for a strong, centralised authority. The Kashmir conflict, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and the post-9/11 war on terror further amplified the military’s influence, as it positioned itself as the bulwark against external and internal threats. However, this narrative conveniently obscures the military’s role in perpetuating instability to maintain its grip on power.
The military’s dominance is not merely political; it extends into the nation’s economic and social fabric. Through sprawling business empires like the Fauji Foundation and the Army Welfare Trust, the military controls vast sectors of the economy, from agriculture to real estate. These enterprises, often tax-exempt, operate with little transparency, siphoning resources that could otherwise fund public services. Meanwhile, the military’s influence over media and civil society stifles dissent, ensuring its narrative remains unchallenged.
The People’s Burden: Economic and Social Costs
The consequences of this military-led governance model are borne by Pakistan’s 240 million citizens, who face a litany of challenges exacerbated by the generals’ priorities. The economy, perpetually on the brink, is a stark reflection of mismanagement and skewed resource allocation. Pakistan’s GDP growth has lagged behind its South Asian neighbours, averaging around 3-4% annually over the past decade, compared to India’s 6-7%. Public debt has skyrocketed, with external debt surpassing $130 billion in 2024, driven by loans from the IMF and bilateral creditors like China. This economic burden is not just a statistic, but a daily struggle for the people.
The military’s outsized budget is a significant drain on national resources. In 2023, defence spending accounted for roughly 4% of GDP, dwarfing allocations for education (1.7%) and healthcare (1.4%). While the military justifies its budget by citing security threats, the lack of transparency raises questions about how these funds are used. Meanwhile, ordinary Pakistanis grapple with inflation rates hovering around 10-12%, unemployment affecting nearly 10% of the workforce, and a poverty rate that leaves over 40% of the population below the international poverty line.
Socially, likewise, the military’s dominance has stifled democratic institutions and civil liberties. The judiciary struggles to uphold the rule of law, often cowed by military pressure. Political parties, while complicit in their failures, are frequently manipulated or sidelined through engineered elections or disqualifications. The 2018 elections, widely criticised for military interference, saw the rise of Imran Khan’s PTI, only for Khan to later fall out with the establishment, leading to his ouster in 2022 and subsequent imprisonment. This cycle of co-optation and discardment undermines democratic continuity and public trust.
Once a vibrant space for debate, the media now operates under severe constraints. Journalists face harassment, censorship, and even violence for criticising the military. Social media platforms, while offering some resistance, are increasingly monitored, with laws like the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act used to silence dissent. Civil society organisations, too, face restrictions, leaving little room for grassroots movements to challenge the status quo.
Education and healthcare, critical for human development, remain woefully underfunded. Pakistan’s literacy rate hovers around 60%, and its public schools are plagued by dilapidated infrastructure and teacher shortages. Strained by population growth and inadequate facilities, the healthcare system leaves millions without access to basic care. These failures are not merely administrative; they reflect a deliberate prioritisation of military interests over human welfare.
The Vicious Cycle: Instability and Dependency
The military’s dominance creates a vicious cycle of instability and dependency. By undermining civilian institutions, the generals ensure that no alternative power center can emerge, perpetuating their indispensability. This weakens governance, leading to economic crises that necessitate foreign bailouts. The IMF’s repeated interventions (Pakistan has availed itself of 23 IMF programs since 1958) come with austerity measures that hit the poor hardest, further fuelling discontent.
Foreign policy, too, is shaped by military priorities, often at the expense of national interests. Pakistan’s alignment with the U.S. during the Cold War and the war on terror brought billions in aid but also drew the country into conflicts that destabilised its northwest. While promising infrastructure development, the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) has deepened Pakistan’s debt to China, with opaque agreements raising concerns about sovereignty. The military’s control over foreign policy limits diplomatic flexibility, as seen in Pakistan’s strained relations with India and its delicate balancing act between the U.S. and China.
Internally, the military’s counterterrorism operations, while necessary, have often been heavy-handed, alienating communities in regions like Balochistan and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. The Baloch insurgency, fuelled by economic marginalisation and human rights abuses, is a case in point. Forced disappearances and extrajudicial killings, attributed to security forces, have deepened mistrust, making reconciliation elusive.
A Path Forward: Reclaiming Pakistan’s Future
Breaking the backwards march of Pakistan requires a fundamental reorientation of its entrenched power dynamics. For decades, the military establishment has held disproportionate sway over national policy, foreign relations, and even economic priorities, often at the expense of democratic development and civilian governance. This imbalance has fostered instability, weakened institutions, and stifled public dissent. To move forward, the people of Pakistan must reclaim their agency and demand accountability from both military and civilian leaders. This means bolstering civil society, protecting press freedom, and empowering grassroots democratic movements. Actual progress will not come from external aid or authoritarian “stability,” but from an engaged citizenry that insists on transparency, the rule of law, and genuine representation. Reclaiming power from entrenched elites will be difficult. Still, it is the only path toward a more equitable, prosperous, and sovereign Pakistan—one where the state serves its citizens, not the other way around.
The first step would be strengthening civilian institutions. A robust judiciary, free from military influence, is essential for upholding the rule of law. Political parties must prioritise internal democracy and governance reforms over short-term alliances with the military. Civil society, including media and NGOs, needs space to operate without fear, fostering a culture of accountability.
Economically, reallocating resources from defence to development is critical. Investing in education and healthcare can unlock Pakistan’s human potential, creating a more skilled and productive workforce. Economic diversification, beyond reliance on agriculture and textiles, is also necessary to reduce vulnerability to global shocks.
Foreign policy must be wrested from military control and aligned with national interests. Normalising relations with India, particularly through trade, could unlock economic benefits for both nations. A balanced approach to global powers, avoiding over-dependence on any single ally, would enhance Pakistan’s sovereignty and diplomatic leverage.
Conclusion
Pakistan’s backwards march, orchestrated by its generals, is a tragedy of squandered potential. The military’s dominance has enriched a small elite while impoverishing the masses economically and democratically. Yet, the resilience of Pakistan’s people offers hope. Pakistan can reverse its trajectory by empowering civilian institutions, prioritising human development, and fostering a culture of accountability. The path is fraught with challenges, but the alternative of continued regression is unthinkable. The generals may lead the march, but it is the people who pay the price, and it is they who must ultimately chart a new course.
Breaking this backwards march requires a fundamental reorientation of Pakistan’s power dynamics. Most importantly, the people must reclaim their agency. The time to act is now, for Pakistan’s future is in the hands of its people.
Please Add Value to the write-up with your views on the subject.
For regular updates, please register your email here:-
Information and data included in the blog are for educational & non-commercial purposes only and have been carefully adapted, excerpted, or edited from reliable and accurate sources. All copyrighted material belongs to respective owners and is provided only for wider dissemination.
References:–
1. Haqqani, H. (2005). Pakistan: Between Mosque and Military. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
2. Siddiqa, A. (2007). Military Inc.: Inside Pakistan’s Military Economy. Pluto Press.
3. Cohen, S. P. (2004). The Idea of Pakistan. Brookings Institution Press.
4. Jalal, A. (1990). The State of Martial Rule: The Origins of Pakistan’s Political Economy of Defence. Cambridge University Press.
5. World Bank. (2024). Pakistan Economic Update 2024. World Bank Group.https://www.worldbank.org/en/country/pakistan/publication/pakistan-economic-update
6. International Monetary Fund (IMF). (2023). Pakistan: Staff Report for the 2023 Article IV Consultation. IMF.
7. Pakistan Bureau of Statistics. (2023). Pakistan Economic Survey 2022-23. Government of Pakistan.
8. Freedom House. (2023). Freedom in the World 2023: Pakistan. Freedom House.
9. Rizvi, H. A. (2000). Military, State and Society in Pakistan. Palgrave Macmillan.
10. Small, A. (2015). The China-Pakistan Axis: Asia’s New Geopolitics. Oxford University Press.
11. Lieven, A. (2011). Pakistan: A Hard Country. PublicAffairs.
12. Malik, I. H. (2016). Pakistan: Democracy, Development, and Security Issues. Oxford University Press.
13. Ahmed, Z. S. (2013). Civil Society and Democracy in Pakistan. Routledge.
14. The Economist. (2023). Pakistan’s Political Crisis: The Military’s Long Shadow. The Economist.
My article was published on The EurasianTimes website on 04 May 25.
The Shimla Agreement, signed on July 2, 1972, between India and Pakistan, is a cornerstone of South Asian diplomacy. Forged in the aftermath of the 1971 Indo-Pakistani War, which led to the creation of Bangladesh, the agreement aimed to establish a framework for peaceful bilateral relations and normalise ties between the neighbours. Signed by Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi and Pakistani President Zulfikar Ali Bhutto in Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, the treaty sought to end hostilities, resolve disputes peacefully, and lay the groundwork for cooperation.
On April 24, 2025, Pakistan’s National Security Committee (NSC), its top civil-military decision-making body, announced the suspension of the 1972 Shimla Agreement, alongside other bilateral agreements with India, in retaliation for India’s suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) on April 23, 2025. This escalation was triggered by the Pahalgam terror attack in Jammu and Kashmir on April 22, 2025, which killed 26 civilians, including two international tourists. The suspension of the Shimla Agreement has thrust it back into the spotlight.
The suspension reignited debates about the Shimla Agreement’s historical significance. In 1972, Indira Gandhi faced criticism from opposition parties, notably the Jan Sangh (predecessor to the BJP), for not converting the ceasefire line into an international border. Atal Bihari Vajpayee, then a prominent opposition leader, protested in Shimla against the agreement, arguing it conceded too much to Pakistan.
The Treaty
The Shimla Agreement emerged from the geopolitical upheaval of the 1971 Indo-Pakistani War. The war was triggered by Pakistan’s brutal suppression of the Bangladesh Liberation Movement in East Pakistan, leading to a humanitarian crisis and the displacement of millions of refugees into India. India’s military intervention, supporting the Mukti Bahini (freedom fighters), resulted in a decisive victory, with the surrender of over 93,000 Pakistani soldiers and the creation of Bangladesh.
The war left Pakistan diplomatically and militarily weakened, necessitating negotiations to address post-war issues such as prisoner repatriation, territorial disputes, and the future of bilateral relations. After intense negotiations, the agreement was signed at Barnes Court (now Raj Bhavan) in Shimla. A key sticking point was the status of Kashmir, with India insisting on bilateralism and Pakistan seeking flexibility to internationalise the issue. Personal diplomacy between Gandhi and Bhutto, including late-night discussions, facilitated a compromise that emphasised peaceful coexistence while sidestepping a definitive resolution on Kashmir.
Provisions of the Shimla Agreement
The concise Shimla Agreement contains six key provisions to foster peace and cooperation. These provisions are rooted in sovereignty, bilateralism, and non-interference.
Bilateral Resolution of Disputes. Both nations committed to resolving all disputes, including the Kashmir issue, through peaceful bilateral negotiations, explicitly rejecting third-party mediation, such as from the United Nations. This clause has been a cornerstone of India’s foreign policy, emphasising that Kashmir is a bilateral matter.
Establishment of the Line of Control (LoC). The December 17, 1971, ceasefire line was formalised as the Line of Control in Jammu and Kashmir. Both sides agreed to respect the LoC without unilateral alterations, irrespective of their differing legal interpretations. This provision aimed to stabilise the volatile Kashmir region by establishing a de facto boundary.
Respect for Sovereignty and Territorial Integrity. India and Pakistan pledged to respect each other’s sovereignty, territorial integrity, and political independence and refrain from interference in internal affairs. This clause sought to prevent destabilising actions, such as supporting insurgencies or hostile propaganda.
Non-Use of Force. Both countries agreed to refrain from the threat or use of force against each other’s territorial integrity, aligning with the principles of the United Nations Charter. This provision aimed to de-escalate military tensions and promote peaceful coexistence.
Normalisation of Relations. The agreement outlined steps to normalise relations, including resuming communications, trade, cultural exchanges, and people-to-people contacts. It also facilitated the repatriation of prisoners of war and civilians detained during the conflict, marking a humanitarian gesture.
Recognition of Bangladesh. While not explicitly stated, the agreement paved the way for Pakistan’s eventual diplomatic recognition of Bangladesh as a sovereign nation, resolving a major point of contention post-1971.
Additionally, the agreement included provisions for future meetings between the heads of government to further peace efforts and address unresolved issues. India returned over 13,000 km² of captured Pakistani territory, demonstrating goodwill.
Relevance of the Shimla Agreement
The Shimla Agreement remains a pivotal reference point in India-Pakistan relations, shaping diplomatic and strategic interactions for over five decades. Its relevance can be assessed across several dimensions:-
Bilateralism as a Diplomatic Framework. India’s foreign policy bedrock has been the emphasis on bilateral dispute resolution. India has consistently cited the agreement to counter Pakistan’s attempts to internationalise the Kashmir issue at forums like the United Nations. The agreement’s rejection of third-party mediation aligns with India’s stance that external involvement, particularly from Cold War superpowers or the UN, complicates rather than resolves bilateral issues.
Stabilisation of the Line of Control. The formalisation of the LoC provided a pragmatic mechanism to manage the Kashmir dispute. Despite frequent ceasefire violations, the LoC remains the de facto boundary, guiding peace talks and ceasefire agreements. Its recognition through decades of practice has given it international legitimacy, even after the agreement’s suspension.
Humanitarian and Diplomatic Aspect. The agreement facilitated the repatriation of prisoners of war and civilians, addressing immediate post-war humanitarian concerns. It also set the stage for Pakistan’s recognition of Bangladesh, reducing a major source of regional hostility. These outcomes underscored the agreement’s role in de-escalating tensions and fostering dialogue, highlighting its humanitarian and diplomatic achievements.
Challenges to Implementation. Despite its noble intentions, the agreement’s vision of normalised relations has been elusive. Persistent mistrust, cross-border terrorism, and differing interpretations of the Kashmir issue have hindered progress. Pakistan’s attempts to internationalise Kashmir and incidents like the 1999 Kargil War and the 1984 Siachen conflict violated the agreement’s spirit, underscoring its fragility.
Contemporary Context. The agreement’s relevance has been tested by evolving geopolitical dynamics, including the nuclearisation of both nations’ post-1998 and India’s abrogation of Article 370 in 2019, which revoked Jammu and Kashmir’s special status. Pakistan’s suspension of the agreement in 2025 further questions its efficacy, yet India upholds bilateralism as a guiding principle.
Repercussions of the Suspension
On April 24, 2025, Pakistan announced the suspension of the Shimla Agreement. This move, coupled with the closure of the Wagah border, trade suspension, and airspace restrictions, marks a significant escalation in bilateral tensions. The suspension’s repercussions are multifaceted.
Symbolic and Diplomatic Impact. Pakistan’s suspension is mainly symbolic, as the agreement’s practical relevance has diminished due to repeated violations. The bilateral dialogue mechanism envisioned under the deal has been dormant, with high-level talks suspended after major incidents like the 2019 Pulwama attack. The suspension formalises Pakistan’s shift toward internationalising the Kashmir issue, potentially seeking involvement from the UN, China, or the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC).
Strategic Implications for the LoC. The suspension raises concerns about the LoC’s status. Pakistan’s non-recognition of the LoC as a de facto border could lead to increased ceasefire violations or attempts to alter the status quo, as seen in past conflicts like Kargil. However, the LoC’s international recognition and India’s military preparedness mitigate immediate tactical consequences.
Regional Stability. The suspension undermines regional stability, particularly in the context of nuclear-armed neighbours. It could escalate diplomatic and military brinkmanship, derailing prospects for dialogue. The closure of cross-border routes and trade further isolates Pakistan economically. At the same time, India’s global diplomatic offensive could weaken Pakistan’s international standing.
Legal and International Perspectives. In international law, the suspension’s impact is limited. The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) sets a high bar for treaty termination due to “fundamental changes in circumstances,” and the Shimla Agreement’s “best endeavour clauses” are not strictly binding. The LoC’s status as a de facto border is unlikely to be challenged internationally, and India’s position on bilateralism remains robust. Pakistan’s move may invite criticism for violating international commitments, strengthening India’s narrative of Pakistan’s unreliability.
India’s Strategic Advantage. The suspension paradoxically benefits India by removing diplomatic constraints. India can pursue a harder line against cross-border terrorism, revisit claims over Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir (PoK), and intensify diplomatic efforts to isolate Pakistan. The absence of the agreement may also prompt India to reassess other bilateral treaties, such as visa regimes and trade agreements, aligning them with national security interests.
Challenges and Future Prospects. The Shimla Agreement’s suspension highlights its unfulfilled potential. Deep-seated mistrust, domestic political pressures, and external influences, such as Pakistan’s alignment with China, have consistently undermined its objectives. The lack of a dispute resolution mechanism within the agreement limited its enforceability, and differing interpretations of Kashmir’s status fuelled tensions. Reviving bilateral dialogue will require confidence-building measures, such as ceasefire adherence and counter-terrorism cooperation, though the current diplomatic freeze makes this unlikely.
Conclusion
The Shimla Agreement of 1972 was a bold attempt to reset India-Pakistan relations after a devastating war. Its provisions for bilateralism, the LoC, and peaceful coexistence provided a framework for stability, but its implementation was hampered by mistrust and violations. While the agreement remained a diplomatic touchstone for decades, its suspension in 2025 reflects its diminished practical relevance. The repercussions, while symbolic, open the door to heightened tensions and strategic recalibrations, particularly for India. The suspension, Pakistan’s “strategic mistake”, handed India a diplomatic advantage. India can now justify retaliatory measures, such as surgical strikes or economic sanctions, without being bound by the agreement’s constraints. As South Asia navigates this crisis, the Shimla Agreement serves as both a reminder of peace’s fragility and a lesson in reconciling historical grievances.
Please Add Value to the write-up with your views on the subject.
Information and data included in the blog are for educational & non-commercial purposes only and have been carefully adapted, excerpted, or edited from reliable and accurate sources. All copyrighted material belongs to respective owners and is provided only for wider dissemination.
References:-
Simla Agreement, July 2, 1972. Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India.
