Should India take back POJK?

For more than a year, Indian top leadership has been warning that it is determined to take back the illegally occupied part of the original State of Jammu and Kashmir. The message is sent across to Pakistan to vacate the aggression.

 

India takes cues from many sources to adopt a belligerent attitude. These could be – Item No. 1 of the Security Council Resolution of 1948, the Indian Parliament’s unanimous resolution of 1994, Pakistan’s near bankruptcy and insolvency, and the rising crescendo of anti-Islamabad tirades in “Äzad Kashmir” as well as in Gilgit Baltistan.

 

These are not plausible reasons to warrant a military solution to the problem. Therefore, any precipitate action will have serious consequences.

 

The warnings issued by Indian leadership are devoid of seriousness. When the former Indian army chief, a minister in the Modi cabinet, was asked how India would take back POJK, he replied, “It will come to us by itself.” The hint was towards the internal turmoil in POJK. To believe that Pakistan will succumb to the claptrap of the POJK masses is tantamount to ignorance of the mindset of the Pakistani deep state.

 

ALSO READ: Is democracy subjective to Bangladesh and not for Balochistan? – THE NEW INDIAN 

 

Thirty years have gone by since the Indian parliamentary resolution on retaking POJK was passed. No action was taken all these years to implement the resolution. It was a hollow resolution.  The world knows that it was meant to counter and neutralise the anti-India resolution on Kashmir which Pakistan had tabled at the UNHRC in Geneva and to which the US and its European allies had given a go.

 

If New Delhi thinks that by re-taking POJK, the infiltration of Pakistani armed jihadis into Kashmir will be stopped, it is a misunderstanding. Lately, we have seen that Pakistani infiltrators have found the International Border (IB) near Samba and Kathua as vulnerable for inroads besides being highly suitable for digging secret tunnels.

 

As far as item number 1 in Clause A of the 1948 resolution of the SC is concerned, the entire resolution is null and void for two strong reasons. One is that the resolution has been trivialized by Pakistan by not withdrawing its fighting forces from the illegally occupied part of the State. Secondly, the UN Charter stipulates that if two contesting states come to a mutual understanding and sign an agreement to that effect, the UN withdraws its role of addressing the dispute. India and Pakistan signed the Shimla Agreement in 1972 and this put an end to the role of the UN and the validity of its resolutions.

 

There is one more legal point that should make Indian intervention irrelevant and uncalled for. India and Pakistan agreed to a ceasefire in J&K in 1948 which holds till date. In other words, India accepted that Pakistan was a party to the dispute. In the accession document, Maharaja Hari Singh has categorically stated that he has requested the Indian government to take military action against the Pakistani intruders till the State is cleared of their presence. It has excluded the option of a ceasefire. Maharaja Hari Singh strongly opposed the ceasefire in J&K without clearing the entire state of the presence of Pakistani warriors.

 

ALSO READ: Bangladesh Crisis: Democratic protests or a calculated manoeuvre for regime change? – THE NEW INDIAN

 

Lastly, India and the world know that armed insurgency in Kashmir was primarily initiated by the one million-strong POJK Diaspora in the UK. POJK is culturally, linguistically, geographically and historically different from the Valley. The region came into being following the 1947-1948 ceasefire between India and Pakistan. This region was effectively divided, into Azad Kashmir and  Gilgit-Baltistan, directly administered by Pakistan. Neither AJK nor Gilgit-Baltistan is formally recognized as a province of Pakistan.

 

The ethnic composition of Pakistan-occupied Jammu & Kashmir is diverse. It includes Kashmiris, who primarily live near the Line of Control (LoC) and the Kashmir Valley, speaking Pahari, Mirpuri, and Kashmiri dialects. Gujjars, traditionally pastoralists residing in the region’s hilly and mountainous areas, speak Gojri, a language related to Rajasthani. Bakarwals, closely related to Gujjars, are nomadic herders who move seasonally between high-altitude pastures and lower valleys.

 

Gilgit-Baltistan features an even more varied ethnic makeup due to its strategic location at the crossroads of South Asia, Central Asia, and China. The Shin people, one of the largest ethnic groups in the area, reside mainly in the Gilgit, Astore, and Diamer districts, speaking Shina, a Dardic language. The Balti people, found primarily in Baltistan, speak Balti, a Tibetan language, and are mostly Twelver Shia Muslims, with a minority adhering to Nurbakshi Islam.

 

Other ethnic groups include Burushaski, Wakhi and Khowar speakers in Ghizer, who also reside in the neighbouring Chitral region of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. Annexing POJK will be a perennial unease for the Government of India. Kashmir history tells us that the highlanders, the Bombas and the Khashyas of the downstream region have been the predators, always disturbing the peace and tranquillity of the valley.

 

Lastly, there will be much sense in India prepared to give up Azad Kashmir and bargain for Gilgit-Baltistan. That would be a real achievement in conformity with securing India’s northern borders against the joint aggressive designs of China and the US.

 

The writer is the former Director of the Centre of Central Asian Studies, Kashmir University, Srinagar.