Kartarpur: From Religious Diplomacy to Legal Guarantees

Pakistan’s relationship with the Sikh religion and its historical heritage goes well beyond geographical proximity; it is rooted in shared history, spiritual affiliation, and the civilizational heritage of the subcontinent. Gurdwara Darbar Sahib Kartarpur, where Guru Nanak Dev Ji, the founder of the Sikh religion, spent the last 18 years of his life, holds exceptional religious and historical significance for the Sikh community and is also a reflection of the love and devotion of Pakistanis. Located in Pakistan’s Narowal district, this site is a magnet for Sikh pilgrims arriving from Pakistan and India, as well as from around the world. The inauguration of the Kartarpur Corridor in November 2019 was an important diplomatic breakthrough regarding religious access between Pakistan and India. However, subsequent events made it clear that practical facilitation and bilateral and international legal guarantees are two different things. Keeping this distinction in view, the time has now come to consider an integrated legal framework for the protection of Kartarpur and pilgrims’ access, one that rises above political tensions and provides a long-term basis for the protection of religious heritage.
Before discussing the Lateran Treaty concluded almost a century ago, it is necessary to understand that the Holy See refers to the central religious and administrative institution of the Pope and the Catholic Church under his leadership, which also represents the Church at the global level. On the other hand, Vatican City has a status broadly similar to that of a sovereign state. The two are deeply intertwined; however, their legal statuses are distinct.
For this purpose, two international examples are of special significance: the 1929 Lateran Treaty, through which the longstanding dispute between Italy and the Holy See was resolved, and the 2015 agreement between Portugal and the Ismaili Imamat, which provided a formal framework for the legal status and institutional independence of a global religious institution. These two examples are certainly different from Kartarpur in their structure, but the principle that can be derived from them is that, while maintaining state sovereignty, special legal protections and durable and reliable arrangements should be established for a sacred site such as Kartarpur and the activities associated with it.
Historically, the Lateran Treaty concluded between Italy and the Holy See on 11 February 1929 provided the basis for recognising Vatican City, to some extent, as a sovereign state. However, the significance of this treaty is not limited merely to the establishment of Vatican City. Under Article 15 and the relevant provisions, certain specific properties of the Holy See located in Rome were granted special legal protection, while the properties listed in Article 16 received specific privileges while remaining within the general administrative and legal system of the Italian state. The core purpose of these provisions was to ensure that these properties remained protected and effectively usable for the performance of the official functions of the Holy See.
An important legal distinction deserves emphasis here: the sovereignty of Vatican City and the special status granted to certain properties of the Holy See located in Italy are not the same thing. These properties were not declared separate sovereign states like Vatican City, nor was a blanket exemption from all Italian laws established for them. The treaty provided specified protections for particular locations and official activities. Similarly, Article 12 of the treaty is important in the context of arrangements concerning diplomatic communications between the Holy See and the Italian state and the free movement of bishops. The treaty revised in 1984 introduced sweeping changes to the legal framework governing their relations, including ending the status of Catholicism as Italy’s sole state religion; however, the sovereignty of Vatican City remained intact.
The real lesson of this example for Kartarpur is not merely that Pakistan should make the gurdwara a state like the Vatican, but that stronger and clearer legal guarantees than ordinary administrative orders can be put in place for the legal status of a sacred site, administrative independence, property protection, and religious access. Pakistan can establish a specific legal framework for the gurdwara premises, religious activities, and the movement of pilgrims while maintaining its territorial sovereignty. In this way, religious respect and state authority can be balanced and brought into alignment with each other.
The agreement signed between Portugal and the Ismaili Imamat on 3 June 2015 provided a landmark modern example of special legal protection for the international role of religious institutions and their institutional functions. Portugal’s parliament approved the agreement in October 2015. Under Article 2, Portugal recognised the legal personality of the Ismaili Imamat and its capacity to play a role in international relations, while the agreement also spelled out privileges and immunities relating to the official functions of its headquarters, assets, Imam, senior officials, and staff.
A striking feature of the agreement is Article 19, which concerns its duration. Under this article, the agreement is designed to remain in force for an indefinite period, while, after the first 25 years have elapsed, either party has the right to terminate it by giving four years’ advance written notice, unless the parties agree in writing to change this period. Therefore, it would be more accurate to describe it as an agreement of indefinite duration that also contains a termination procedure subject to defined conditions.
This example establishes the principle that modern states can, within their constitutional and legal systems, recognise legal and diplomatic protection, institutional continuity, and freedom in the performance of official functions for a global religious institution according to its specific needs. However, the agreement between Portugal and the Ismaili Imamat probably does not constitute a precedent for automatically granting the same privileges to a gurdwara; nevertheless, a stronger framework for administration and governance can be developed by drawing conclusions from it.
Approximately seven years ago, on 24 October 2019, Pakistan and India sealed an agreement for the movement of Sikh pilgrims through the Kartarpur Corridor. In October 2024, the duration of this agreement was extended by a further five years, bringing its agreed term to October 2029. Under this arrangement, up to 5,000 pilgrims per day were allowed to visit Gurdwara Darbar Sahib without a visa, subject to specified conditions, while a service charge of US$20 was set for each pilgrim. Additional capacity on special religious occasions may also be provided in accordance with the terms of the agreement and administrative capacity.
This arrangement is an important diplomatic and religious facility in its own right, but its duration and conditions make it clear that it cannot be regarded as equivalent to permanent legal protection for an indefinite period. In May 2025, in the context of the Pahalgam attack and the subsequent spike in tensions between India and Pakistan, Indian authorities suspended the services of the Kartarpur Corridor. The suspension of the corridor’s services was also posted on the official portal of India’s Ministry of Home Affairs. This incident exposed how the facility available for religious pilgrimage can be affected by broader security and diplomatic circumstances.
It would be appropriate to conclude from this situation that, rather than scrapping the existing arrangement, the possibility of additional and stronger legal guarantees should be explored alongside it. The objective should not be to disregard a state’s legitimate security-related powers, but to establish clear principles for decision-making on matters of religious access, advance notification, and legislation that gives priority to religious matters in emergency situations, and to develop an agreement that remains immune to political disagreements and can provide permanent protection for religious heritage and pilgrims’ interests.
Pakistan should launch formal diplomatic consultations by discussing the matter with the Sikh community and, through them, examining ways to make the existing Kartarpur Corridor agreement with India more effective and to assess the possibility of granting Gurdwara Darbar Sahib a special legal status. Representative institutions of the Sikh community and global Sikh organisations should be included in this process at an appropriate stage. The purpose of these consultations should not be to establish a foreign sovereign territory, but to develop a specific legal arrangement within the framework of Pakistan’s sovereignty and domestic law that provides protection for a highly sacred site such as Kartarpur, religious administration, meaningful participation by the local and international Sikh community, the consent of both countries, and agreed enforceable guarantees.
One key point is that an inter-ministerial committee comprising the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Ministry of Religious Affairs, the Ministry of Law and Justice, and the Ministry of Interior should be established to prepare the legal arrangement. The committee should conduct a detailed review of the existing agreement, international precedents, constitutional requirements, and proposed legal protections. After consulting Sikh representative institutions, the committee should prepare a comprehensive draft for preliminary diplomatic negotiations with India. Article 20 of Pakistan’s Constitution guarantees the right to religious freedom and to manage religious institutions, while Article 25 establishes the principle of equality among citizens and equal protection of the law. These provisions and the relevant laws should be taken into account when formulating the proposed arrangement.
Such a legal arrangement for the Kartarpur Corridor has the potential to position Pakistan not merely as the host of a historical religious site, but as a responsible partner in the protection of religious heritage and the promotion of interfaith relations. It can be adapted in accordance with Pakistan’s Constitution and the relations between the relevant parties. If progress is made with these principles in view, a lasting and practical path can be cleared for preserving Kartarpur’s sanctity, facilitating pilgrims, and building regional confidence.