The Kashmir Valley: Jewel of South Asia. While some view it as paradise, for political ideologists, it’s a simmering cauldron of tension. Many liken it to the ‘Gaza’ of the Indian Subcontinent, a land contested by nations far and wide. Since India and Pakistan gained independence from the British Raj, both have staked their claim on Kashmir. Despite Maharaja Hari Singh’s accession to India post-independence, Kashmir remains ensnared in a cycle of violence, shaping its modern perception.
Recently, the world has seen two faces of Kashmir. Yes, two faces. I am talking about Indian Kashmir and Pakistan Occupied Kashmir (POK) or Azad Kashmir or Pakistan Administered Kashmir – whatever you want to name it. India and Pakistan, once an undisputed and united land mass, and ‘carrot of independence’ made it two separate land, British made it and peoples of this region still are bearing the sufferings.
Once a brother, since 1947, they are neighbours. But today’s story is they may be neighbours, separated by international borders, but their political and economical scenario is pretty different. While India is cherishing the fruit of World’s Largest democracy, and in the other hand Pakistan has tumultuous political culture. The country has witnessed numerous coups against legitimate elected governments and endured periods of military rule. 76 years of post-independence era, Pakistan has weakened economically, now it is grappled with international debt. Currently, the Lok Sabha General Election is underway in India in 7 phases. Jammu and Kashmir has actively participated in the 5 phases (from 19 April to 20 May 2024) to elect 5 members of the 18th Lok Sabha. While Indian Kashmir has voted actively with a focus on development, Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir (POK) has been marred by unrest, protesting against the Pakistani government’s handling of inflation and demanding financial aid for basic necessities. This economic strife is now a primary concern for POK, alongside other parts of Pakistan.
The Kashmir Quandary: Hari Singh’s Dilemma, UN Intervention, and Nehru’s Policy
The Kashmir saga is a tale woven with threads of complexity, politics, and unresolved disputes. At its heart lies the dilemma faced by Hari Singh, the Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir, as the subcontinent hurtled towards independence from British rule.
In 1947, as the British prepared to depart, the princely states of India faced a critical decision: to accede to either India or Pakistan or remain independent. Hari Singh, the ruler of Kashmir, found himself in a precarious position. His state, with its diverse religious and ethnic composition, was coveted by both India and Pakistan. The majority Muslim population, coupled with the looming threat of invasion from Pakistan, added to his dilemma.
In October 1947, raiders backed by Pakistan invaded Kashmir, prompting Hari Singh to seek military assistance from India. In exchange for aid, he acceded to India, a decision that ignited the Kashmir conflict. Pakistan rejected the accession, claiming Kashmir as rightfully theirs due to its Muslim majority.
The United Nations intervened, passing a resolution calling for a ceasefire and a plebiscite to determine the region’s future. However, the plebiscite was never held, and the ceasefire line, known as the Line of Control, solidified, dividing Kashmir into Indian-administered and Pakistan-administered territories.
Jawaharlal Nehru, India’s first Prime Minister, played a central role in shaping India’s strategy regarding Kashmir. Nehru’s vision of secularism and democracy clashed with the idea of allowing Kashmir to secede to Pakistan solely based on religious demographics. He advocated for Kashmir to remain an integral part of India, promising autonomy and special status under Article 370 of the Indian Constitution.
However, over the decades, the situation in Kashmir remained volatile. Insurgencies, cross-border skirmishes, and human rights abuses characterized the region’s troubled landscape. The promise of autonomy eroded, and in 2019, the Indian government controversially revoked Article 370, stripping Kashmir of its special status and splitting it into two union territories.
The Kashmir saga continues to reverberate, a testament to the unresolved tensions and competing narratives that define the region. Hari Singh’s dilemma, the intervention of the UN, and Nehru’s strategy are all pivotal chapters in this ongoing saga, reminding us of the complexities inherent in the quest for peace and sovereignty in one of the world’s most contentious regions.
Abrogation of Article 370 and 35A
The abrogation of Article 370 and Article 35A of the Indian Constitution marked a significant and controversial turning point in the history of Jammu and Kashmir. These articles, which granted special autonomy and privileges to the region, had been at the center of political discourse and contention since their inception.
Article 370, incorporated into the Indian Constitution in 1949, granted special autonomous status to the state of Jammu and Kashmir. It allowed the state to have its own constitution, flag, and autonomy over all matters except defense, foreign affairs, finance, and communications. Additionally, Article 35A, inserted into the Constitution through a Presidential Order in 1954, empowered the Jammu and Kashmir legislature to define permanent residents of the state and confer special rights and privileges upon them, including the right to own property and access to government jobs and scholarships.
For decades, Article 370 and Article 35A had been a source of contention and debate. Critics argued that they created a separate set of laws for Jammu and Kashmir, impeding its integration with the rest of India. Proponents, however, contended that these provisions were essential to preserve the unique identity and autonomy of the region, particularly in light of its historical context and the ongoing conflict over its status.
In August 2019, the Indian government, under the leadership of Prime Minister Narendra Modi and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), made the controversial decision to abrogate Article 370 and Article 35A. The move was accompanied by a massive security clampdown in the region, with the deployment of additional troops, a communications blackout, and the arrest of political leaders.
The abrogation of Article 370 and Article 35A was met with mixed reactions. Supporters hailed it as a bold step towards fully integrating Jammu and Kashmir into India, arguing that it would promote development, investment, and equal rights for all citizens. They asserted that the special status had hindered the region’s progress and perpetuated separatist sentiments.
On the other hand, critics condemned the move as unconstitutional and undemocratic, accusing the government of bypassing parliamentary norms and disregarding the will of the people of Jammu and Kashmir. They warned that it could exacerbate tensions in the region, fuel separatist sentiments, and deepen alienation among the local population. The abrogation of Article 370 and Article 35A fundamentally altered the political and legal landscape of Jammu and Kashmir. It redefined the relationship between the region and the Indian Union, signaling a shift towards greater centralization and integration. However, the long-term implications of this decision remain uncertain, as the region grapples with questions of identity, autonomy, and the unresolved conflict over its status.
Also Read | Burkina Faso Extends Junta Rule: Democracy’s Delay or Democratic Backslide?
What Does POK Want?
No matter what Pakistan wants to show the world about Pakistan-Administered Kashmir (Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir) as a region of virgin beauty and organic farming, the reality is that it remains underdeveloped. Putting aside political ideology and mentality, Pakistan has never had the funds for substantial development in the Occupied Kashmir region. The nation consistently struggles to maintain economic momentum. Geologically, Pakistan is not conducive to fostering a robust indigenous industry, which is a significant drawback. Achieving a sustainable economy requires a solid economic strategy, which Pakistan has never successfully implemented.
Regarding Kashmir, Pakistan is unwilling to relinquish its claim due to national pride and its desire to remain relevant in the international community. Moreover, if Pakistan were to give up its claim, it would lose the support of China. Pakistan gained Chinese support after ceding Aksai Chin (previously known as Gosthana, meaning “Land of Cows” in Ladakhi) to China. Since 1962, China has claimed Aksai Chin as part of Tibet, which they occupied in 1950. Therefore, if Pakistan relinquishes its claim on Kashmir, it would not only lose face but also the monetary benefits derived from Chinese backing.
In summary, Pakistan finds itself in a predicament. By allowing China to take Aksai Chin in exchange for international backing, it has worsened its own situation. As a result, Pakistan has no option but to persist in its claim on Kashmir to maintain its standing and support in the international community.
Also Read | Russian Strikes Claim Lives in Kharkiv: Death Toll Rises, Dozens Wounded
Strategic Water Politics: The Impact of River Control on Pakistan and India’s Leverage in Kashmir
Azad Kashmir (AK) in Pakistan is traversed by four significant rivers: the Jhelum, Neelum, Poonch, and Shingo. The Jhelum River, the largest, is the only major Himalayan river flowing through the Kashmir valley. The Jhelum basin, with about 147 glaciers covering 75 square kilometers, along with the Neelum and Poonch rivers, is vital for millions in the region and downstream.
The Indus River is crucial to Pakistan’s economy, providing water for irrigation, industry, and hydroelectric power. Originating in Tibet, it flows through Pakistan to the Arabian Sea. About 90% of Pakistan’s food production and 65% of its employment rely on the Indus.
India’s control of the Indus headwaters gives it significant influence over Pakistan. The 1960 Indus Waters Treaty, under World Bank supervision, allocated the western rivers (Indus, Jhelum, Chenab) to Pakistan and the eastern rivers (Ravi, Beas, Sutlej) to India.
In February 2024, India completed the Shahpur Kandi barrage, stopping Ravi River water flow into Pakistan, benefiting regions like Jammu and Kashmir and Punjab.
Relinquishing its claim on Kashmir would allow India to control Pakistan’s water supply, potentially turning Pakistan into a dry land if India chooses to exercise this power.
Also Read | Tragedy Strikes: Children Among 27 Killed In Rajkot Gaming Zone Inferno; SIT Probe Initiated
What Does India Want?
India has a legitimate claim to the entire Kashmir region, as the then-ruler, Maharaja Hari Singh, acceded to the Republic of India with his consent. Therefore, India’s claim on Kashmir is valid. The BJP, the incumbent party at the center, holds the first Prime Minister of independent India, Jawaharlal Nehru, accountable for the ongoing Kashmir issue. According to them, Nehru’s Congress party created this problem despite winning the war against Pakistan. They view it as a historic blunder, the consequences of which Kashmir still suffers from.
No matter how Pakistan tries to portray it, Indian-administered Kashmir is more developed compared to Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir (POK). The current Indian government, led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, aims to develop the entire Kashmir region, including POK. However, to achieve this, India believes it needs to annex Azad Kashmir.
Also Read | Poster Targets Pakistan Army Chief Outside UK High Commission Amid PoK Unrest
What Does POK/AK Want?
Putting aside any political agenda, people in any region desire development and modernization over time. This encompasses better infrastructure, good governance, an improved quality of life, government schemes, aid, education, jobs, industry, and more. While Indian Kashmir participated wholeheartedly in the general election, Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir (POK) was suffering and agitating against the incumbent Pakistani government. This pressure forced the Shehbaz Sharif government to allocate 24 billion rupees ($86 million) to Pakistan-Administered Kashmir (POK).
Also Read | Protest March Halted in POK as Pakistani PM Addresses Grievances
The people of POK are fed up with soaring prices and underdevelopment. Many have voiced their dissatisfaction, noting the stark differences between POK and Indian Kashmir. This discontent has led to questions about whether POK might prefer to merge with India.
Since independence, POK has had three dynamic demands: join Pakistan, join India, or become an autonomous state. Currently, POK is officially under Pakistan’s administration but has its own government and Supreme Court. It even has its own capital, which is Muzaffarabad. Despite this, it has failed to modernize and remains economically dependent on Pakistan. Clearly, it cannot sustain itself as an autonomous state. The most viable option for POK might be to merge with Indian Kashmir, thereby eliminating the Line of Control (LOC).
Challenges of Merging Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir with Indian-Administered Kashmir
Merging Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir (POK) with Indian-administered Kashmir poses several challenges for India:
- International Relations: Such a move would likely provoke strong opposition from Pakistan and could escalate into a military conflict. It would also attract international condemnation and potentially lead to sanctions or other diplomatic consequences.
- Local Opposition: The people in POK may resist integration due to political, cultural, and historical reasons. Their long-standing identification with Pakistan and desire for autonomy could fuel resistance.
- Security Concerns: Integrating POK could exacerbate insurgency and terrorism in the region, leading to increased security challenges and the need for significant military and policing resources.
- Legal and Constitutional Issues: India would face complex legal and constitutional hurdles in integrating POK, as it would require significant amendments and international legal justification.
- Economic Burden: Development and modernization of POK would demand substantial economic investment from India, which could strain national resources.
- Political Unrest: Such a move could trigger political unrest within India, particularly in regions with significant Muslim populations, and could disrupt the delicate communal harmony.
In summary, merging POK with Indian-administered Kashmir involves navigating complex geopolitical, security, legal, economic, and social challenges.
Visible Options for India to Capture Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir (POK)
1. Diplomatic Efforts:
- International Diplomacy: Strengthening alliances with global powers and leveraging diplomatic channels to build support for India’s stance on POK.
- United Nations Advocacy: Raising the issue at the United Nations and other international forums to highlight Pakistan’s human rights violations and lack of development in POK.
2. Economic and Development Initiatives:
- Showcasing Development in Indian Kashmir: Investing in infrastructure, education, and healthcare in Indian-administered Kashmir to demonstrate the benefits of integration and attract support from POK residents.
- Economic Sanctions on Pakistan: Collaborating with international partners to impose economic sanctions on Pakistan, increasing pressure on its government.
3. Information and Media Campaigns:
- Highlighting Disparities: Using media to highlight the disparities in development and governance between Indian-administered Kashmir and POK.
- Promoting Indian Democracy: Emphasizing the democratic values and economic opportunities available in India to win over the hearts and minds of people in POK.
4. Engagement with POK Residents:
- Humanitarian Aid: Providing humanitarian aid and support to POK residents to build goodwill and demonstrate India’s commitment to their well-being.
- Cultural and Social Integration: Promoting cultural and social exchange programs to foster a sense of unity and shared identity.
5. Strategic Military Posture:
- Defensive Preparedness: Maintaining a strong defensive posture along the Line of Control (LOC) to deter any aggression and protect Indian interests.
- Limited Military Operations: Conducting precision military operations to neutralize threats and secure strategic positions if necessary, while avoiding full-scale conflict.
6. Legal and Constitutional Measures:
- Assertion of Legal Claims: Reaffirming India’s legal claims over POK based on historical agreements and the Instrument of Accession signed by Maharaja Hari Singh.
- Legislative Actions: Passing resolutions and laws within the Indian Parliament to assert sovereignty over POK and outline plans for its integration.
Each of these strategies presents its own set of challenges and requires a balanced approach. Combining diplomatic, economic, informational, and strategic military measures can help India address the complex issue of POK effectively.
