Road ahead
for India to Pakistan-occupied-Kashmir (PoK)
This is all
about what lies ahead for India as one of the world's largest military forces, as a double-trillion-dollar economy to
do about Pakistan-occupied-Kashmir. We will explore this by looking at some of biggest questions that
come in the minds of Indians and India’s allies when it comes to PoK.
The first one: Why is India not willing to get back POK from
Pakistan?
Simla Agreement 1972 is the reason.
Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, the then PM of Pakistan and Indira
Gandhi the then PM of India signed this agreement in Simla in 1972, after Indo
Pak war of 1971. Both the countries agree in the agreement that Kashmir issue
is a bilateral issue and will be solved by peaceful means. The agreement
converted the cease-fire line of 17 December 1971 into the Line of Control
(LOC) between India and Pakistan and it was agreed that "neither side
shall seek to alter it unilaterally, irrespective of mutual differences and legal
interpretations.” India has a record of honoring any treaties and agreements
signed. Be it bilateral or Multilateral. India is just keeping its word as
given in the treaty, and honors the agreement. The Government of India will not
seek to alter it unilaterally, just because people want then to do so. Her
clean record of not failing any agreements makes India a trusted partner when
signing any bilateral agreements.
“What is
the main reason India does not try to annex the part of Kashmir controlled by
Pakistan? Why can't India win back PoK?”
The time
for India to get back PoK (Pakistan Occupied Kashmir as it called in India or
Azad Kashmir as it is called in Pakistan) is long past.
1.
Jawaharlal Nehru prematurely went to the UN Security Council in 1948 that
brought external intervention to the dispute. India is still paying for many of
the mistakes of our first Prime Minister. Once the UN got involved, it became
hard for India to take aggressive action there. https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/kashun47.htm
(This article will show India's advantageous position before Nehru's
intervention brought a ceasefire. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Kashmir_War)
2. After 1970s,
both nations developed nuclear and missile capabilities precluding the
possibility of a major war. If India were to attack PoK, Pakistan is guaranteed
to respond with a nuclear attack.
3.
Currently, Gilgit-Baltistan and Pakistan Administered Kashmir (PoK) are almost
entirely Muslim (after the minority Hindus were driven out or got killed in
partition in 1947) and India will find it hard to argue its case of winning
back. If anything, India could have fought to keep Sindh (that had the largest
Hindu percentage among Pakistani provinces in 1947) rather than Kashmir.
4. Status
quo is beneficial to everybody (even if Pakistan makes noise otherwise). Ending
the current status can open Pandora's box.
5. Because
it is not worth to annex Pakistan occupied Kashmir.
5a. Arable
Land: India have maximum arable land in disputed territory. Pakistan occupied
Kashmir is not much useful. It is less densely populated, rugged mountains.
These are no use of India. Even India win these territory they have to spend
lots of money and military to hold it. Gorilla warfare and militant proxy war
will be an overhead in controlling these areas. So economically it will be
expensive to hold such land. Similarly for China occupied Kashmir Shaksgam
valley and Aksai Chin. These two territory is filled with soda lakes. So
question is what China is doing there? They have National highway 219 which
connects mainland China with Xinjiang province.
5b.
Demographics: Demographics of Pakistan occupied Kashmir do not favours India.
Consider current situation of Kashmir. Just imagine what will happen if North
west of India is full of militants and stone platters. So its fools paradise to
fight for such land.
5c. Geo
Strategic Land: Some people argue that it is important geo strategic land. But
I believe it’s not much important after India captures Siachen Glacier. NJ9842,
Indira colony and Karakoram pass provide triangle boundary between India, China
and Pakistan. Hence India can easily monitor militant or any army moves from
these areas. India maintains control over all of the 47 miles long Siachen
Glacier and all of its tributary glaciers. So geopolitically we have enough
land.
“What are
the long term solutions, if any?”
Maintain
the status quo. India will not give Indian Kashmir. Pakistan will not give
Pakistan occupied Kashmir. Infact in both countries it becomes political
suicide if any government do any change in Line of control. So in current
scenario touching or altering Line of control is highly implausible. Best is maintain
status quo.
Conclusion:
India and Pakistan should maintain status quo without interfering in internal
matters of each other. India and Pakistan should understand that they have
problem inside their nation. They should give priority to develop whatever land
they have. Pakistan should leave its obsession for Indian Kashmir. Indian
should leave their obsession to Pakistan occupied Kashmir. They should
prosperous their respective nations.
“When might
India get back Pakistan Occupied Kashmir?”
India will
not get back the entire Pakistan Occupied Kashmir, in the coming 20–30 years.
But definitely India will be able to capture some portion of it in the next two
decades, if some serious border clashes happen between the two countries. In
1984 India successfully captured the Siachen Glaciers from Pakistani army, and
in 1965 Indo Pak war, India captured the strategic Haji Pir Pass which
dominated Kargil town and many other tactically important areas , and later
returned back respecting the Tashkent Declaration.
After the
successive surgical Operations in November 2016, the cross border policy of
India towards Pakistan is facing a Paradigm Shift. Thus if a future war erupts
between both the Countries (unlike in 1998, Kargil Conflict, India strictly
didn’t cross the LOC and recaptured it’s territory after a fierce battle),
Indian Army definitely will occupy some of the Border territories including the
Peaks in Gilgit and Baltistan, other areas of POK, without any hesitation. Now
the Indian Govt, and International Community including US, France, Russia, and
UK will back India as they strongly feel, India is their only friend in the
region that can tackle China. Also the regional Players like Afghanistan (where
majority of the population hates Pakistan, and strongly believes Pakistan is
the reason for their instability), will strongly support India, whom they see
as it’s natural Ally.
“Can India
get its occupied land back from neighbors like Pakistan and China? If yes, how?”
India is
not going to get an inch of land from either Pakistan or China for the near
future. Pakistan and India have an equal claim to Pakistan-occupied-Kashmir
—Azad Kashmir & Gilgit-Baltistan. From Pakistan’s POV, India and Pakistan
were divided along religious lines, and thus Kashmir should belong to Pakistan,
since Kashmir was Muslim majority when the partition happened. From India’s POV
—the provision was that areas under the direct control of British India was to
divided along religious lines, and not the princely states, which had the
option to either join India or Pakistan. Kashmir had no obligation to accede to
Pakistan, given that it was not at all under the direct control of British
India.
As it
happened, the princely states enclosed by Pakistan acceded to Pakistan, and the
ones which were enclaves of India acceded to India (a few states like
Hyderabad, Manipur and Tripura put up a defensive; the ruler of the princely
state of Hyderabad was defeated by Indian forces, while Manipur and Tripura
acceded to India, after India gained control of Hyderabad).
However,
Kashmir was bordered by both India and Pakistan, and the ruler of Kashmir
wanted to remain independent. The Muslim Conference of the state wanted to
accede to Pakistan, since Kashmir was 90% Muslim back then. Result? 1947 Poonch
Rebellion. Then, the Maharaja doesn’t have the military might to quell this
revolution and asks India for help, promising to accede to India.
As for
Aksai Chin —the territory controlled by China, but claimed by India and parts
of Arunachal Pradesh —the territory controlled by India but claimed by China,
the differences go back to the British era.
In the
first few decades after Indian independence, China used military might to gain
pieces of land. Pakistan and India fought over disputed Kashmir —and ended up
getting almost half each. I wouldn’t say either of them “gained” over the
other. No country had any right to Kashmir whatsoever and so nobody lost and
nobody gained (as far as I’m concerned).
But that
was the 20th century. The three nations were rebelling kids back then and have
now learnt the lessons of what a full scale war can bring. China and India are
easily among the 5 most powerful nations in the world. A war between these two
countries can derail the robust economic growth both countries have had in the
past few decades, and I’m sure neither country wants a war. Even if, say, China
(or India) gets to control both Aksai Chin and Arunachal Pradesh, the benefits
(the gained territories) will be far, far, lesser than the damage, both in
terms of lives lost and economic loss. Pakistan is a far lesser military power
than India, but even then it can put up a stellar defense against any Indian
incursion, and it’ll be much like India and China fighting. A full scale war
probably won’t trigger a nuclear war, but the damages caused by even a
conventional war can be enormous, again, considering the fact that these
countries are in their golden period of growth. You don’t want to derail a
train that’s moving on the right track with great speed.
Thus, we’re
left with a few options:
Preserve status quo, but maintain claims:
Talk all you want for political gains or international diplomacy —but nobody is
getting anything. Whatever border exists now will remain so in the future.
There will be no wars, only claims. The three countries can claim all they want
—Pakistan can claim the entirety of Kashmir, or even parts of Punjab or fuck
it, Tamil Nadu, and India can claim Islamabad! But again, really, nobody is
getting anything.
What this means: Pakistan gets to keep Azad
Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan; China gets to keep Aksai Chin; India gets to keep
the remaining of Jammu & Kashmir and Arunachal Pradesh.
Formally withdraw claims, preserve status
quo: The three kids can all grow up and formally withdraw all claims on each
other’s territory and preserve status quo.
Diplomacy: Get other countries to withdraw
claims on your territory —but refuse to do the same yourselves. Ha! Not
happening, not happening at all. Or, exchange territories. China gets to keep
the parts of Arunachal Pradesh it wants, and India gets to keep Aksai Chin
—this is not preferred, of course, but just saying that it is one possibility.
The best
option, and the one currently practised by all three nations is (1). All three
nations talk quite a lot; they don’t withdraw their claims, but they’re not
warring each other other. Sure, there are a couple of skirmishes along the
borders every now and then but that’s about it. (1) is the best option, because
it pleases the nationalists in all three countries and so it is a viable option
for the political parties in all three nations (a majority of the population
won’t prefer war, but still can’t digest the fact that their country has
withdrawn claims over some territory and so the “Ah! They’re doing stuff” will
be there). No party will be willing to take the serious risk of giving up
claims —that’s suicide.
That said,
China and India have taken steps to that effect: China ready to make
concessions in Aksai Chin if India cedes part of Tawang in Arunachal Pradesh,
China offers India fresh proposals to mend ties. As a democracy, it’s hard to
expect India to publicly state that it will also withdraw its claim on Kashmir
or give up parts of Arunachal Pradesh, but has supposedly expressed its intent
behind closed doors”: India 'will let China keep Aksai Chin' in return for
Arunachal Pradesh (note: This is not an official statement, rather a derived
intent from “foreign ministry documents”, as quoted by the Daily Mail). An
excerpt:
Publicly, India has been holding to its
stated position that there can't be any territorial concessions. But behind the
closed doors of the negotiating room, India has told China that it "may
not be averse to status quo position".
With some
maturity amongst the majority population, this is a viable option. But it’s
hard to tell when the population will attain that level of maturity. Until, a
war of words should continue, with no real expectations. The words released to
the press will purely be to satisfy the public.
