Nowadays, fantasy stories are being painted about how the Indian Army can recapture Pakistan-occupied Kashmir. But a look at history reveals that this is difficult to happen.
 |
| Photo (https://unsplash.com/photos/EMBUzelF0_s) |
Pakistan-occupied Kashmir is India's territory and the country wants to retake it one day, ”he said. Jaishankar's statement is currently being further clarified. If a Union Minister was asked at a press conference what his views would be on the Pakistan-occupied Kashmir issue, not on the Kashmir issue, what would he say differently?
Jammu and Kashmir is a disputed region. The international community and the United Nations believe that the future of the region can only be resolved through dialogue between India and Pakistan. If India is to accept the status quo, the final decision seems to have been taken at the outset of the talks. This is the wrong strategy for any bilateral discussion. That is why India is insisting on its claim on Kashmir.
The role of the international community in Jammu and Kashmir
The past has seen that if there is a real discussion between India and Pakistan, their role may change. But for now, the status quo is what India has achieved. There are historical and demographic reasons for this, as well as objective political reasons.
Considering the international community, their role is clear from the statement made by the UN Secretary General on August 8. "The region will be governed in accordance with the UN Charter and the resolutions passed by the Security Council will be implemented," he said. However, he also referred to the Shimla Agreement of 1972, which stated that "the Jammu and Kashmir issue will be settled amicably and in accordance with the UN Charter."
The current role of the United Nations is derived from UN Security Council Resolution 307, which was adopted by 13 countries but not by others. Poland and the Soviet Union decided to abstain. This, with the help of the United Nations Military Observer Group for India and Pakistan, gave the organization the right to take institutional involvement in the matter.
Why did India fail to capture independent Kashmir with the help of army ?
The first answer to why India failed to capture the region known as independent Kashmir with the help of the army is that there is a majority of non-Kashmiri-speaking Muslims in the region, who are staunch supporters of Pakistan. In 1947, the Indian Army immediately drove the local invaders out of the Kashmir Valley. But, when they tried to go beyond Uri, they realized it was almost impossible.
Then, at the end of December 1947, political leaders began to worry about the security of Poonch, Naushera, Rajuri and Jammu. After the fall of Mirpur and the horrific stories of rape and trafficking of Hindu women, the government was forced to take the initiative in this area. This was not an easy task - a fierce battle ensued in Kotli, Zangar, Naushera and Poonch.
The Indian Army was not only concerned about the Punjab border but also the burning issue in Hyderabad. As a result, Gilgit and Skardu did not have enough troops to conquer the territory. Although the Indian Army was entrusted with the task of defense, they succeeded in retaining control of Kargil, Dras and Lekh.
Pakistan-occupied Kashmir and the question of population
Today, even if Pakistan peacefully returns Pakistan-occupied Kashmir to India, things will not be as simple as they seem. The fact is that India will be able to reach the border of Afghanistan and the territorial ties connecting Pakistan and China will be severed. But, because of this, India will have to face a population - no matter how imagined - it will not be on India's side. The 44 lakh people of this region called Azad Kashmir belong to the warring tribes of Sudhan, Gujjar, Jat and Rajput, who are the opponents of India.
Even with the opposite claim, the 2 million people in Gilgit-Baltistan cannot side with India, and with the increase in Sunni migration here in the last few years, the influence of Shiites in the region is diminishing.
The biggest question is, will the BJP, which has never sided with Muslims, be happy with the increase in the number of Muslims in Jammu and Kashmir's 125 lakh population, where 67% are Muslims?
Although Pakistan has a special political interest in Jammu and Kashmir, its troops are deployed to control independent Kashmir. If you take a look at the map, you will notice that if India gains control of the region, it is only 35-50 km from Islamabad, the capital of Pakistan. For this one reason, the Pakistan Army will vigorously defend this land.
Balakot is a different matter and re-occupying the territory is a different
Nowadays, fantasy stories are being created about how the Indian Army can recapture the region through war. If one were to learn a lesson from history, one would realize that this is difficult to happen, and that the efforts made by Yadav will also invite a major catastrophe. The army has nothing to prove that India can defeat Pakistan in this region. You can strike like Balakot, but taking over the territory is a different matter.
An important idea behind the 1948 armistice was that India controlled the Kashmir Valley and the roads leading to Ladakh. At that time, it was assumed that Pakistan would be satisfied with what it had at present. But in the next few years, Pakistan - which has moved away from internal unity - has decided to make Kashmir an issue of its own. Since then, they have started spreading rumors that any 'settlement' on the Kashmir issue was incomplete during the partition.
Nevertheless, when India was forced to release Pakistani prisoners of war during the Bangladesh War, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto agreed that the Line of Control would be considered a permanent border. Until now, the Shimla Accord has been renamed the Line of Control (LoC), transforming a military fact into a seemingly neutral "Line of Control". For the same reason, perhaps five years later, he was defeated by Zia ul Haq.
Again, between 2001 and 2007, under the leadership of former Prime Ministers Atal Bihari Vajpayee and Manmohan Singh, and under the leadership of Pervez Musharraf, an agreement was to be reached to permanently fix the existing borders where they exist. But, inevitably, Musharraf lost power in Pakistan and that is where it ended.
In such a scenario, we can be sure that no matter how loudly Jaishankar may have made this statement, it cannot be a final decision on the issue of Jammu and Kashmir as well as Pakistan-occupied Kashmir.
Post a Comment