Rhetoric is fine, but getting POK back will be a headache!

Raju Korti
The talk about India getting Pakistan Occupied Kashmir back in its fold is a red herring. All the national sentiment whipped up on the issue in the last three or four years do not seem to be disposed towards any consideration of why or how it can be done. The international community's view of POK being a "disputed territory" apart, the bottom line remains that it comprises two ethnically and linguistically different regions: What Pakistan feels is the Azad Jammu and Kashmir and Gilgit Baltistan which is the northern most tip of Kashmir and covers parts of Ladakh. The latter makes for an overwhelming area of POK and seems to have found little mention in the strategic discourses and debate on the future of Kashmir.

Defence Minister Rajnath's Singh's optimism of getting back POK is based on the assumption that India will not be required to do anything (by which he means the use of military might) as the people of POK are themselves in favour of a merger and the ground situation in Kashmir much better than what it was in the earlier years. He, of course, did not deviate from the professed Indian line that "POK was, is and will remain ours".

While reports indeed say that there is an increasing unrest in POK and people wanting to become a part of India, it is not so simple as buying a chocolate on a counter. There are over 5 million people in POK. What does India do with them? Give them citizenship? Since the Partition they have been systematically brainwashed into believing that India is a sworn enemy. Can India ask them to go to Pakistan, and if they don't want to, as is most likely, will India use force? The ferment is fundamentally because of the fact that its inhabitants are staring at utter poverty, unable to make ends meet and in comparison to the bankrupt Pakistan, India appears to be the rising Sun. The new-found love for India by the people of POK is driven by expediency and the need for survival, not because of any change in religious or territorial priorities.

There is and will be a serious question mark on how these five million plus people will conduct themselves as law abiding citizens of India and whether we can afford to expend a substantial military might to hold on to them in the times to come should there by any eventuality. Are we willing to risk our soldiers on people who have been for decades armed by the Pakistanis? How do we feed them? They all use the Pakistani currency which is not legal tender in India. So, do they exist as refugees surviving on Indian largesse until they become part of the country's mainstream? The noise to become part of India should be seen more as the futility of living with a broke Pakistan than any affinity for India. 

There are, of course advantages. It is a strategic terrain for India's national security advantage and gives access to Afghanistan and Tazikistan for trade benefits. If India takes back POK or POK merges with (I make a subtle distinction between the two) India, Pakistan's geographical importance will diminish and give India better connection with Central Asia, Russia and Europe. It will not be altogether surprising that Pakistan will oppose this tooth and nail even if it means being blacklisted by the FATF.

In the midst of this talk, it is not sure how much conquest and diplomacy would work. There is at the moment there is nothing to indicate that this so called merger will be unequivocal; especially given the ruling dispensation in India. Also do not forget that India could not take back POK after three wars with Pakistan. A referendum in POK? Too early to even talk about it. What happens to the Radcliffe Line? Will the borders with Pakistan be remapped, and how? Winning battles on the front is one thing and winning them on the negotiating table is quite another. On that front, the record has been rather dismal.

Pakistan will never nod for any legal or political solution, and a war among the nuclear states could be catastrophic. The non-state actors are always onto the bandwagon. Besides, there is the China factor. As I see it, if a referendum is held in POK today and the only option of Pakistan and India is presented to the people, majority might choose India. But if we talk about the political opinion of the people of "Azad Kashmir/POK", then majority would back the independent state of Jammu and Kashmir which means reverting it back to its earlier status. Hence out of question.

I see zero reason for India to waste money and resources on a piece of land that has little to offer  beyond some patriotic rhetoric. Getting POK back would mean precious little else than an ego booster of rubbing dust on Pakistan's nose. It makes horse sense to keep such emotions aside and think sensibly. A prosperous India is far better than a bigger India with a chunk of land that will bring more headache. The cons far outweigh the pros.

To say that POK is a "disputed territory" is being over-simplistic. POK's merger with India has complex and sensitive ramifications with historical, political and cultural roots. The discussions about the status of POK are often deeply intertwined with the larger geopolitical dynamics and historical context of the region. It is not easy to find consensus on the solutions to these complexities.

India should not be taken in by the popular sentiment in POK which stems from their desperation of living in a country struggling for survival and at a point of no return. At the end of the day, people of POK are Pakistanis and don't deserve to become a part of India even if they wish so. There also are rumblings in Pakistan where a section believes that the Partition was a monumental mistake -- a realisation born out of the same consideration. 

Imagine a (hypothetical) scenario where Pakistan again becomes what was erstwhile India. There are many in India and Pakistan who visualise this and claim that together, they will be a global force on all fronts. In that case, history will record the Partition, the subsequent bloodshed and pre-Partition leaders presiding over the political manoeuvrings as a poor joke.

Rhetoric should remain what it is. A poor substitute for action and none whatsoever if it is fuelled for some brownie points.