In accordance with Tashkent`s statement, ministerial talks were held on 1 and 2 March 1966. Despite the fact that these talks were unproductive, diplomatic exchanges continued in the spring and summer. The results of these discussions were not obtained due to differences of opinion on the Kashmir issue. The news of Tashkent`s statement shocked the people of Pakistan, who expected India to make more concessions than they got. Things got even worse when Ayub Khan refused to speak and went to solitary confinement instead of announcing the reasons for signing the agreement. Protests and riots took place at various locations in Pakistan.  To dispel the anger and concerns of the people, Ayub Khan decided to take the matter before the people on 14 January 1966. This is the difference with Tashkent`s statement that eventually led to the impeachment of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto from the Ayub government, which later founded his own party, the Pakistan People`s Party. Although Ayub Khan was able to satisfy the concerns of the people, Tashkent`s declaration significantly tarnished his image and was one of the factors that led to his downfall.  [iv] General Knowledge Today, „Sir Creek Dispute,“ August 10, 2012 www.gktoday.in/sir-creek-dispute/. Under Article III of the agreement, the two countries had decided to settle their differences through peaceful means through „bilateral negotiations“ or other peaceful means agreed between them.
This clause opposed the intervention of third parties and insisted on a bilateral mechanism to resolve the problems between India and Pakistan. However, some decisions taken under the Shimla agreement have resulted in the loss of a golden opportunity to resolve the Kashmir issue in a sustainable way. S.K. Sinha said that Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru had informed the Indian delegation prior to the Karachi meeting, telling them that the UN resolution recognized the legality of Kashmir`s accession to India and that, therefore, any „no man`s land“ would belong to India. The Pakistani delegation should provide the UN Commission with proof of its actual positions of control over the entire territory they claim. Sinha explained that, on the basis of this principle, the agreement delimited several hundred square kilometres of territory on the Indian side, although there were no Indian troops in the area.  The two most important decisions taken by New Delhi and enshrined in the Shimla Agreement were the repatriation of territories conquered by India by the international border and the repatriation to Pakistan of 93,000 prisoners of war (mostly military but also civilian) (prisoners of war) without written agreement for the transformation of the Line of Control (LoC) at the international border.