Pakistan's Strategic Contradictions
Military Victory Undermined by Diplomatic Incoherence
Pakistan's recent diplomatic positioning reveals unprecedented institutional contradiction that transforms military victory into strategic defeat. Despite achieving tactical superiority through Operation Bunyan Marsoos, Pakistan's leadership has authorized contradictory policies that systematically undermine the legal and strategic foundations necessary to consolidate those gains.
The Core Institutional Contradiction
The foundational contradiction exposes Pakistan's institutional breakdown with unprecedented clarity. Field Marshal Asim Munir was promoted specifically "in recognition of his brilliant military leadership, courage, and bravery, ensuring Pakistan's sovereignty and territorial integrity and courageous defense against the enemy" following Operation Bunyan Marsoos. The cabinet declaration stated the promotion came for his invaluable services in the defense of the homeland and for taking decisive steps to restore the balance of power in the region.
Yet this same Field Marshal simultaneously commands an establishment that authorizes diplomatic positions systematically undermining the very sovereignty he was promoted for defending. The institutional breakdown becomes stark when examining the contradictory positions within Pakistan's own government structure.
The Simla Agreement Contradiction
Defense Minister Khawaja Asif declared the 1972 Simla Agreement dead, stating Pakistan has effectively returned to the 1948 position regarding Kashmir and that "the Line of Control should now be viewed as a ceasefire line." This declaration theoretically liberates Pakistan from bilateral constraints and returns it to the UN framework where Pakistan historically sought international intervention on Kashmir.
Yet Pakistan Peoples Party Chairman Bilawal Bhutto Zardari explicitly contradicted this fundamental policy position, opposing suspension of the Simla Agreement. This contradiction becomes historically damaging when considering that Bilawal defends the very bilateral framework his grandfather Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto was widely viewed as being forced to sign under duress following Pakistan's devastating 1971 defeat.
The Historical Context of Simla as Surrender
The Simla Agreement represented Pakistan's diplomatic capitulation following comprehensive military defeat. After the 1971 war ended with "the surrender of over 93,000 Pakistanis, including soldiers, diplomats, civilians, and the creation of Bangladesh, Pakistan was diplomatically and militarily weakened, necessitating negotiations to address post-war issues. The agreement was signed after intense negotiations where Bhutto, charismatic yet burdened by defeat, sought a face-saving deal.
The agreement's terms were historically viewed as constraining Pakistan's strategic options. The commitment to settle their differences by peaceful means through bilateral negotiations" meant "India has, many a times, maintained that Kashmir dispute is a bilateral issue and must be settled through bilateral negotiations as per Simla Agreement, 1972 and thus, had denied any third party intervention even that of United Nations.
This bilateral framework was precisely what Pakistan historically rejected. Before 1972, Pakistan consistently demanded international intervention and UN involvement on Kashmir. The Simla Agreement forced Pakistan to accept bilateral resolution mechanisms that inherently favored India as the larger power, while simultaneously constraining Pakistan's ability to internationalize the dispute.
Bilawal's Defense of Historical Defeat
Bilawal's current opposition to suspending the Simla Agreement represents strategic amnesia of the most damaging kind. Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto privately promised the then Indian Prime Minister, Mrs. Indira Gandhi, that his country would accept the Line of Control (LOC) in the state of J&K as the de facto border and would not try to destabilize it. This was not formally entered in the agreement because Bhutto said it would cause domestic problems for him at this juncture.
The domestic problems Bhutto feared materialized because the Pakistani establishment and public viewed the agreement as a surrender of strategic principles. The bilateral framework legitimized India's position that Kashmir was an internal matter requiring bilateral resolution, precisely the constraining mechanism Pakistan had spent decades rejecting.
Yet Bilawal now defends this framework, effectively legitimizing the diplomatic defeat his grandfather was forced to accept. This represents the worst possible strategic outcome: defending frameworks that historically disadvantaged Pakistan while simultaneously proving incapable of leveraging either bilateral engagement or international legal mechanisms effectively.
Institutional Command Structure Breakdown
The contradiction becomes institutionally devastating when considering that Pakistan's military traditionally maintains operational oversight of foreign policy, particularly on core issues like Kashmir. Field Marshal Asim Munir is the only army chief in the history of Pakistan who has earlier served as chief of both premier military intelligence agencies of Pakistan, namely, Inter-Services Intelligence and Military Intelligence.
His unique background suggests complete institutional oversight of intelligence and foreign policy coordination. Yet the simultaneous existence of contradictory government positions. Defense Minister declaring Simla dead while PPP Chairman defending it, indicates either complete institutional coordination failure or external pressure overriding military strategic doctrine.
This institutional breakdown transforms Pakistan's military success into strategic incoherence. Field Marshal Asim Munir leads forces to tactical victory while the civilian leadership he theoretically coordinates with abandons strategic frameworks (through Asif's declaration) and simultaneously defends historically disadvantageous agreements (through Bilawal's opposition). The result is Pakistan achieving neither bilateral leverage nor international strategic positioning, despite rare military superiority.
The ISI-RAW Cooperation Paradox
Most troubling is the apparent military approval of ISI-RAW intelligence cooperation proposals. While Field Marshal Asim Munir declares intentions to revive the Kashmir issue, his establishment simultaneously authorizes Bilawal's calls for intelligence cooperation to resolve terrorism, a framework that legitimizes India's characterization of Kashmir resistance as terrorism requiring bilateral security cooperation.
This intelligence cooperation framework represents fundamental abandonment of Pakistan's legal position. Under international law, UN General Assembly Resolution 37/43 explicitly affirms the "legitimacy of struggle for liberation from foreign occupation by all available means, including armed struggle." Protocol I of Geneva Conventions specifically recognizes armed conflicts where "peoples are fighting against alien occupation in exercise of their right of self-determination."
ISI-RAW cooperation targeting terrorism would systematically undermine these legally protected movements by accepting Indian framing that resistance to occupation constitutes terrorism requiring bilateral counterterrorism cooperation. This creates legal jeopardy for Pakistan's entire Kashmir position under international law.
Military Success, Diplomatic Theater
Pakistan's Operation Bunyan Marsoos demonstrated clear tactical superiority, destroying Indian S-400 systems, and Rafale jets worth billions, targeting military installations, and shooting down multiple Indian aircraft. Yet Pakistan failed completely to leverage this military advantage diplomatically.
Bilawal's June 2025 UN visit represented diplomatic theater rather than serious advocacy. Despite leading a high-level delegation, he avoided raising Article 370's revocation, Pakistan's primary grievance since 2019. No evidence shows formal resolutions demanding restoration of Kashmir's special status or invocation of UN Security Council resolutions Pakistan historically cites.
Instead, Bilawal's delegation focused on producing social media content rather than meaningful diplomatic outcomes. For a serious Kashmir advocate, the obvious move would have been demanding Article 370's revocation and invoking specific UN resolutions. The delegation's failure to take substantive positions on core issues exposes it as performative rather than strategic.
The Historical Irony of Simla Defense
Bilawal's opposition to suspending the Simla Agreement represents profound strategic amnesia. His grandfather Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto was forced to sign this agreement under disadvantageous circumstances, leading to considerable ridicule for its one-sided, India-favored terms that constrained Pakistan to bilateral frameworks.
The agreement was historically viewed as diplomatic defeat precisely because it prevented Pakistan from leveraging international legal mechanisms. Yet Bilawal now defends this constraining framework while simultaneously proving incapable of using either bilateral engagement or international legal avenues effectively.
This represents the worst of all strategic outcomes: defending frameworks that historically disadvantaged Pakistan while demonstrating inability to operate effectively within any framework, bilateral, multilateral, or legal.
Shangri-La Dialogue Strategic Contradictions
Pakistan's participation in Western-dominated security frameworks further exposes institutional incoherence that transforms military victory into strategic defeat. General Sahir Shamshad Mirza attended the 2025 Shangri-La Dialogue alongside US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, whose keynote delivered explicitly anti-China messaging warning that China's threat was imminent. Hegseth called for collective deterrence against what he characterized as Chinese aggression in the region, describing China as destabilizing the Indo-Pacific.
This participation signals potential strategic realignment away from Chinese partnership precisely when Pakistan should be leveraging Chinese support to consolidate military gains. The contradiction becomes stark when considering the comprehensive dependence on Chinese military technology that enabled Pakistan's tactical success.
Chinese Military Technology Dependence
Pakistan's Operation Bunyan Marsoos success relied almost entirely on Chinese-supplied weapons systems. Pakistani Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar confirmed that Chinese J-10C jets were used to shoot down five Indian fighter jets along the border, while Pakistan's military showcased the JF-17 Block III armed with PL-15 missiles, describing them as PAF's potent punch. The PL-15 represents China's most advanced fighter-to-fighter missile with an engagement range of 200-300 kilometers.
The technological dependence extends beyond aircraft. Pakistan successfully destroyed India's S-400 systems using Pakistan Air Force's JF-17 Thunder hypersonic missiles, while the operation relied heavily on Chinese-made active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar system fitted to the JF-17. According to Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, China accounted for nearly 82 percent of Pakistan's arms imports between 2019-2023.
Pakistan's military arsenal represents a comprehensive Chinese ecosystem: J-10C and JF-17 Block III, equipped with the advanced PL-15 beyond-visual-range air-to-air missile, marked a turning point where Chinese technology is replacing Western weaponry as the operational backbone of Pakistan. The military success demonstrated that "China's military industrial complex has become competitive vis-Ã -vis its counterparts."
Economic Partnership Contradiction
The strategic contradiction deepens when considering Pakistan's massive economic dependence on China through the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC). Originally valued at $46 billion and later expanded to $62 billion, CPEC represents approximately 17% of Pakistan's 2015 gross domestic product and equals all foreign direct investment in Pakistan since 1970.
Pakistan currently owes China about $30 billion, accounting for nearly 30% of its foreign debt. The relationship extends beyond mere financing to comprehensive economic integration. As Pakistan's economic situation deteriorated, Pakistan has already started negotiating debt relief from China due to difficulties in repaying the loan and is seeking more favorable payment terms for the projects under CPEC.
CPEC encompasses critical infrastructure including nine new power plants with a combined capacity of over 5,000 MW were built between 2015 and 2020, helping to ease the nationwide energy shortfall. The corridor aims to rapidly modernize Pakistan's transportation networks, energy infrastructure, and economy" through Chinese investment and expertise.
Strategic Incoherence at Shangri-La
Pakistan's presence at Shangri-La alongside explicitly anti-China messaging represents strategic cognitive dissonance. Hegseth's speech warned that China was harassing its neighbors in the South China Sea while rapidly building up its military, calling for increased defense spending across Asia to counter Chinese threats. He specifically noted how NATO members are pledging to spend 5 per cent of their GDP on defense and urged Asian allies to follow suit against an even more formidable threat from China.
General Mirza's participation in this forum, immediately following military victories achieved through Chinese technology, signals potential accommodation with Western security frameworks that explicitly target Pakistan's primary military and economic partner. This occurs when Pakistan should be leveraging its successful demonstration of Chinese military technology to strengthen strategic partnerships with Beijing.
Market Impact of Pakistani Success
The contradiction becomes economically damaging when considering that Pakistan's military success significantly boosted Chinese defense markets. The shares of AVIC Chengdu Aircraft Co., the manufacturer of J-10C aircraft, saw a sharp hike of 20 percent amid the India-Pakistan clashes. Pakistani success provided a real-time lens into the performance of Chinese military hardware against Western systems and served as essentially a powerful advertisement for Chinese weapons systems.
Yet rather than leveraging this successful demonstration to deepen strategic cooperation with China, Pakistan's diplomatic positioning at Western-dominated forums signals potential strategic hedging that could undermine the very partnership that enabled its military success.
The Technology-Diplomacy Disconnect
Pakistan's strategic contradiction exposes a fundamental disconnect between technological dependence and diplomatic positioning. While celebrating victories achieved through Chinese J-10C aircraft and PL-15 missiles, Pakistan simultaneously participates in forums where these same technologies are characterized as threats requiring collective deterrence.
This technological-diplomatic disconnect creates strategic vulnerability: Pakistan depends on Chinese military systems for tactical superiority while pursuing diplomatic engagement with frameworks that explicitly target Chinese military influence. The result is Pakistan potentially undermining the strategic partnership that provides its military technological edge while failing to secure meaningful alternative partnerships that could replace Chinese support.
When military success depends entirely on Chinese technology, yet diplomatic positioning accommodates anti-China frameworks, the result is strategic incoherence that transforms tactical advantages into potential strategic liabilities.Institutional Control Breakdown
The systematic contradictions suggest either institutional failure or external pressure overriding strategic doctrine. Pakistan's military traditionally maintains operational oversight of foreign policy through what analysts describe as a permanent structure beneath the state.
When the Defense Minister declares one policy (Simla Agreement termination), the PPP Chairman contradicts it (Simla Agreement continuation), and the military establishment apparently approves intelligence cooperation that undermines legal positions, institutional coordination has clearly collapsed.
Recent developments including the arrest of former ISI chief General Faiz Hameed suggest internal stress within the intelligence apparatus that historically coordinated such policies. When institutional control breaks down, the result is policy incoherence that transforms military advantages into diplomatic disadvantages.
Economic Coercion Override
The pattern suggests economic vulnerabilities override strategic logic. Pakistan's emergence from financial crisis appears to have created external leverage sufficient to force adoption of positions contradicting institutional strategic interests.
This economic coercion manifests in Pakistan accepting constraining bilateral parameters (through Simla Agreement defense) while simultaneously proving incapable of leveraging international legal avenues. Military victories become strategically irrelevant when economic dependencies prevent consolidation of tactical gains.
Bottom Line
Pakistan's trajectory demonstrates how institutional breakdown and economic pressure can force states to authorize policies systematically eroding strategic foundations. The ultimate contradiction: achieving rare military superiority while undermining every framework, bilateral, multilateral, and legal, that could translate tactical success into strategic advantage.
Pakistan celebrated military victories while its civilian leadership defended historically disadvantageous agreements, proposed intelligence cooperation legitimizing Indian narratives, and conducted diplomatic theater rather than serious advocacy. When military success coincides with institutional incoherence, economic pressure overrides strategic logic.
This represents strategic cognitive dissonance at the state level, simultaneous pursuit of incompatible objectives serving contradictory institutional interests. Pakistan's case illustrates how economic vulnerabilities and institutional breakdown can render military advantages strategically meaningless, transforming tactical victory into comprehensive strategic defeat.