Pakistan occupied Kashmir (PoK) consisting parts of the erstwhile princely state of Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) has remained under Pakistan’s control since 1947-48. It includes the so-called Azad Jammu and Kashmir (‘AJK’) and Gilgit Baltistan (G-B), which until 2009 was referred to as the Northern Areas by the government of Pakistan. These areas were attacked and seized after Pakistan army deceitfully engineered a tribal raid soon after Independence and the ensuing India-Pakistan hostilities of 1947-48. Besides, Pakistan illegally ceded the Trans Karakoram Tract (Shaksgam Valley) to China in March 1963 through a provisional border agreement. India has a legal claim on these territories by virtue of the Instrument of Accession which was signed in India’s favour by the ruler of Kashmir, Maharaja Hari Singh, on 26 October 1947.

Situating PoK in public perception / memory

For more than 7 decades, India has not altered or moderated its official position on PoK- in fact in February 1994, the Parliament of India unanimously adopted a resolution that emphatically asserted India’s stand with regard to its territorial claim on PoK. Despite a steadfast position on PoK, it has been observed that India for most part since 1947, did not strongly pursue its claim on these territories. As a result, India’s policy on the PoK region has been more static and less vigorous. Consequent to the long-held staticity on PoK, a widespread popular passiveness towards PoK has been engendered - mainly implying that PoK is a foregone and India is not serious about it. The policy inertia towards PoK has been partially attributed to what some argue has been India’s tilt towards maintaining status quo. Besides, during these years, India’s energies were effectively absorbed in fending off false propaganda on Kashmir spurred by Pakistan and incited by some western countries.

The inertness in India’s approach on PoK could be fathomed from the fact that the issue never materially figured in the bilateral agenda with Pakistan and China despite the two countries sitting over parts these territories for decades.  Until recently, mention of PoK was rare in government discourse and this gradually eventuated into public ignorance and complacency.

The Geographical Survey of India map shows PoK as part of India’s territorial limits. India’s official political map is part of the school curriculum and generations in India have grown up studying these. However, the cartographic representation never aggregated into concrete mass awareness or tangible knowledge base as the subject never really rolled out in public discussions. What has persisted is either an absolute ignorance or a certain vagueness in as to what comprises PoK and what its present status is. There has been a discrepancy in understanding PoK, a definite gap in what one has seen through maps and what one understands or perceives. An inadequate awareness and incongruity in public perception deepened with continued neglect and policy inertia on PoK spanning decades.

India’s claim on PoK is inevitable

It is therefore argued that India’s existing claim on PoK is quintessential to its territorial integrity and strategic pursuits especially with regard to the Kashmir issue and, therefore, the complacency towards India’s claim on PoK needs to be checked and consciously reversed. This is particularly important for two overarching reasons, amongst several others -

a) J&K and Ladakh and PoK: the integral link

There is an inherent, indelible link between India’s claim on PoK and its control over J&K and Ladakh (after reorganisation as 2 Union Territories in 2019). The Instrument of Accession has been the cornerstone of India’s position on J&K according to which the entire territory of what constituted the princely state of J&K in 1947 acceded to India. Therefore, India’s physical control over J&K and Ladakh and India’s claim on PoK exist simultaneously and are in fact inextricably attached.[i] Clearly, for India, there is no option to abandon one part and pursue the other.

b) Gilgit Baltistan’s role in China-Pakistan ties

The China-Pakistan nexus on India’s northern periphery has been growing and strengthening since early 1960s followed by the provisional boundary agreement in 1963 (stridently opposed by India as illegal). In this regard, India’s claim on PoK is probably by far the most effective ammunition that could potentially hedge this nexus.  India’s stiff opposition to the China-helmed Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and the China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) in particular, has levered around its extant claim on PoK. This is because CPEC, hyped as BRI’s flagship project, cuts across Gilgit Baltistan. Otherwise, there are practically no other natural leverages India has in terms of dealing with the China-Pakistan strategic collision particularly with regard to the broader Kashmir issue. India’s oft-stated reservation have not really stopped China’s BRI advances. But India’s categorical stance has certainly caused some consternation in Beijing. This is also because China itself has on several occasions acceded that Kashmir is a bilateral dispute to be mutually resolved by India and Pakistan.

Gilgit Baltistan, the larger swathe of territory in PoK and the only land link between China and Pakistan is emerging as a centre of gravity in the subcontinent’s strategic landscape especially after the proclamation of CPEC in 2015. Gilgit Baltistan, that has remained a reclusive entity until a few years back, is the bedrock of the China- Pakistan strategic partnership. It is difficult to imagine the nature and embodiment of the strategic cooperation between the two countries if Gilgit Baltistan was not under Pakistan and instead rightfully under India’s control.

Revival of PoK in domestic public discourse - positive trends

Despite a categorical, unaltered and emphatic cartographic portrayal of PoK as part of India, it was only recently that PoK, especially Gilgit Baltistan, started ascending on the popular imagination/perception. The ascendance occurred as key strategic developments in the PoK region gained momentum in the media and official government discourse. It is also because the present political dispensation in India, beginning from their first term, has made a calibrated attempt to resurrect India’s position on PoK by making frequent mention of the territories in their official expositions. From deliberating at the outset whether PoK should be correctly referred to as PoJK (Pakistan occupied Jammu and Kashmir as the so-called ‘AJK’ comprises parts of Jammu region) to Prime Minister Narendra Modi making an explicit mention of the region in his 2016 Independence Day speech, the momentum was gradually and effectively constructed and maintained thereafter. Henceforth, PoK has featured in the Parliament statements of Home Minister and the Defence Minister, amongst others. The External Affairs Minister, S. Jaishankar, has persuasively articulated India’s position on the PoK region including at international fora and how India hopes to have “physical jurisdiction” over it someday.[ii]  

Further strengthening India’s claim is incumbent

The road to reclaiming PoK requires a calibrated but effectively conceived blueprint. By bringing forth the issue in public domain, a small step has been taken. What is now needed is to build upon this momentum and further devise a combination of political, diplomatic and perhaps military options. It may not happen tomorrow but with persistence and determination, India may finally chart its journey towards integrating PoK with what is now the UTs of J&K and Ladakh. It is important to note that two recent developments necessitate re-evaluating India’s future course on PoK- first being the reorganisation of the erstwhile Indian state of J&K and more significantly, the intense India-China standoff in Ladakh since April-May 2020. 

 

Dr. Priyanka Singh is Associate Fellow at Manohar Parrikar Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (MP-IDSA), New Delhi.

 

Image Credit: Thumbnail- Jagran Josh

Tags :

• Security Has Different Dimensions 65

• Share on Social Media

• Follow us on Social Media