Taking Back PoK — Rhetoric or Reality?

Recent remarks by Defence Minister Rajnath Singh, coupled with reports of unrest in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK), have reignited a long-standing debate: Should India reclaim PoK?

It’s a subject charged with emotion and nationalism, yet sentiment alone cannot guide national strategy. A closer look reveals that reclaiming PoK today is far more complex — and potentially perilous — than many would like to believe.

A Brief Historical Context

Legally, the princely state of Jammu & Kashmir acceded to India on 27 October 1947, when Maharaja Hari Singh signed the Instrument of Accession. However, the turbulence of Partition — tribal invasions from the west, political indecision in Srinagar, and strategic manipulations by British-era actors — resulted in parts of the region falling under Pakistan’s control.

In the 78 years since, those territories have evolved under Pakistani administration. They have built their own institutions, cultural identities, and political narratives. Generations have grown up with a different version of history — often distorted or selectively told — shaping mindsets that differ drastically from those across the border in Indian-administered Kashmir.

Why the Desire for Reunification, Though Understandable, Is Misguided

It’s only natural that Indians feel nostalgic about the pre-Partition map of 1947. That longing is rooted in historical legitimacy and national pride. However, policymaking must be driven by strategic rationality, not emotion.

Integrating PoK now would not be a simple administrative act — it would represent a massive, high-risk geopolitical move with unpredictable consequences for India’s internal and external stability.

Practical realities and Strategic risks

1. Changed Realities on the ground

PoK, especially Gilgit-Baltistan, has been under Pakistan’s rule for over seven decades. Its institutions, local leadership, and social structures are deeply entrenched. Attempting to reverse this status quo through force would trigger social unrest and political chaos. What may seem like short-term patriotic fervour could easily devolve into long-term instability.

2. Security and Insurgency threats

Indian-administered Kashmir is only beginning to experience a fragile peace after decades of militancy. Absorbing PoK could reopen old wounds — reigniting terrorism, enabling cross-border infiltration, and creating fresh breeding grounds for extremist groups. Instead of resolving the Kashmir question, it might widen it.

3. Nuclear and Regional implications

Pakistan remains a nuclear-armed nation, and any attempt to alter territorial boundaries could escalate into a full-blown confrontation. In the event of political collapse within Pakistan, the risks of nuclear weapons falling into extremist hands would be catastrophic, not just for South Asia but for the entire world.

4. Diplomatic and Legal repercussions

India’s stance since the Shimla Agreement (1972) and the Parliamentary Resolution of 1994 has consistently emphasised peaceful, negotiated solutions. Any unilateral attempt to redraw borders would likely invite international criticism, strain strategic partnerships, and weaken India’s global image as a responsible democracy.

5. Administrative and Humanitarian challenges

Even if militarily feasible, the political and administrative cost of integrating PoK would be staggering. Rebuilding infrastructure, establishing governance, integrating populations, and managing social reconciliation would require massive resources and decades of effort. Mishandling such a transition could lead to civil unrest and humanitarian crises.

Lessons History Teaches Us

There were two junctures — 1948 and 1971 — when India had the military upper hand and could potentially have altered the map. However, political hesitation and a preference for diplomatic solutions took precedence. Those choices, right or wrong, shaped today’s geopolitical reality.

Yet, history’s missed opportunities should not dictate reckless actions in the present. The region’s dynamics have evolved dramatically, and any attempt to rewrite history militarily could undo decades of progress and stability.

A Sober Strategic View

Unless Pakistan itself undergoes fundamental political or structural collapse, forcibly reclaiming PoK remains neither practical nor wise. India’s priority should be to strengthen its existing borders, enhance internal stability, counter cross-border terrorism, and focus on socio-economic development in Jammu & Kashmir.

PoK, in this sense, is like a fragile and infected limb — forcibly reattaching it could endanger the entire body. Patience, not aggression, must guide India’s long-term approach.

If reunification ever becomes possible, it should arise not from force or political grandstanding, but from a durable, peaceful settlement — one that ensures minimal human suffering and lasting regional stability.

Final Reflection

The call to “take back PoK” makes for strong rhetoric and fiery headlines, but nation-building requires realism over romanticism. The true strength of a great power lies not in expanding its borders, but in securing peace, prosperity, and stability within them.