Reclaiming POK: Historical Perspective, Nehruvian Blunders, Article 370 Imbroglio and Modi-Shah Decisiveness
The era of hesitations, inherited from Nehruvian ambivalence, is decisively over. Under the resolute leadership of PM Narendra Modi, India has moved from rhetoric lamentation to actionable assertion.
Reclaiming Pakistan Occupied Kashmir (POK) Literally, Figuratively and Metaphorically
Abstract
This brief paper provides a historically grounded, constitutionally assertive, and geopolitically strategic analysis of India’s claim over Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir (PoK), Gilgit-Baltistan, Aksai Chin, and the Shaksgam Valley. Anchored in the context of recent policy shifts—including the abrogation of Article 370, the suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty following the Pahalgam massacre, and increasing international focus on Pakistan’s internal contradictions and human rights abuses—this article analyses and then critiques historical policy errors and lays out a path towards reclaiming and eventual reunification of Kashmir, as an integral part of India. With India’s Home Minister earlier having stated in the Parliament that PoK is ours (POK Humara Hai) implying that it will be integrated into the Union sooner than later, this piece explores legal foundations, diplomatic calculations, strategic actions, and humanitarian commitments necessary to achieve this vision.
Author
Karan Bir Singh Sidhu
Retired IAS Officer, Punjab Cadre; Former Special Chief Secretary to the Government of Punjab
Legal and Strategic Analyst | Political Commentator | Advocate for National Integration
I. Introduction: Reigniting the Kashmir Question
The brutal Pahalgam massacre of April 2025, which targeted unarmed civilians in a popular tourist spot, has irreversibly altered the moral and political landscape of the Kashmir issue. Within weeks, the Government of India boldly suspended the Indus Waters Treaty, a landmark 1960 agreement brokered by the World Bank that had survived three wars. This timely diplomatic strike was preceded by Home Minister Amit Shah’s resolute declaration in Parliament: Pakistan Occupied Kashmir (PoK) will be part of India within two years.
India, long shackled by the burdens of legal restraint, political timidity, and diplomatic caution, now finds itself at a critical juncture—a point where historical injustice meets strategic opportunity.
II. The Mountbatten Award, the Tribal Incursion, and the Instrument of Accession
The territorial genesis of the Kashmir dispute lies in the chaotic aftermath of the Mountbatten Award of 1947, under which princely states were permitted to accede either to India or Pakistan. Jammu and Kashmir, with its Hindu ruler and Muslim-majority population, stood neutral—until the tribal invasion backed by Pakistan’s military establishment violated its sovereignty on 22 October 1947.
In response, Maharaja Hari Singh signed the Instrument of Accession on 26 October 1947, legally integrating Jammu and Kashmir into the Indian Union. Lord Mountbatten, acting as the Governor-General of India, accepted the accession the next day. Thus, under both domestic and international law, Jammu and Kashmir became Indian territory, for all intents and purposes.
Yet, India’s decision to refer the matter to the United Nations, instead of decisively repelling Pakistani aggression militarily, would be its first great strategic folly.
III. Nehruvian Blunders: Ceasefire, Internationalisation, and Lost Ground
Prime Minister Nehru’s choice to prematurely halt the Indian Army’s advance in 1948 and declare a ceasefire under UN auspices cost India dearly. While Indian forces had recaptured vast territories, a final push into Muzaffarabad and Gilgit-Baltistan was politically halted.
Worse still, Nehru’s unilateral decision to internationalise the dispute at the United Nations, bypassing even his own Cabinet colleagues like Sardar Patel, legitimised Pakistan’s illegal occupation and allowed the conflict to fester globally.
Pakistan not only consolidated its hold over areas such as “Azad Jammu and Kashmir” (AJK) and Gilgit-Baltistan, but has since then cynically manipulated their status, exploiting the ambiguity for geopolitical gain.
IV. Pakistan’s Calculated Ambiguity: AJK and Gilgit-Baltistan
AJK’s Half-Legal Limbo
Governed by the Interim Constitution Act of 1974, AJK has a legislature and a prime minister, but the real power lies with the Azad Kashmir Council headed by the Prime Minister of Pakistan. Under Section 56, the Pakistani federal government can dismiss the elected AJK government at will. Residents are not full citizens, holding restricted State Subject Certificates that limit property ownership and participation in politics.
Gilgit-Baltistan’s Pseudo-Integration
Unlike AJK, Gilgit-Baltistan is administered directly by Islamabad. Initially known as the “Northern Areas,” the region was granted a legislative assembly only in 2009. Although there is talk of giving it “provisional provincial status”, Islamabad avoids formal annexation to maintain its plebiscite rhetoric at international fora, especially in light of the UN resolutions of 1948–49.
Strategic Motivations
Pakistan’s retention of this ambiguous setup serves two purposes:
It prolongs the Kashmir dispute, shielding Pakistan from criticism while attacking India's position.
It facilitates China’s interests, especially the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), which cuts across Indian territory in Gilgit-Baltistan and the illegally ceded Shaksgam Valley.
V. The Aksai Chin and Shaksgam Betrayals: Collusion with China
China’s Invasion and Occupation
Aksai Chin, a 38,000 sq km desert plateau, was quietly usurped by China in the 1950s. Its military highway connecting Tibet and Xinjiang was discovered only after construction was complete. Nehru’s response—a muted diplomatic protest—was the second great strategic error.
China formalised its hold during the 1962 Sino-Indian War, establishing the Line of Actual Control (LAC), which remains undefined and disputed to this day.
Pakistan’s Shaksgam Sellout
In 1963, Pakistan handed over the Shaksgam Valley (5,180 sq km) to China in an act of supreme betrayal. India considers this cession illegal, as Pakistan had no legal right over the territory it had forcibly occupied. Yet this collusion enabled China to encircle Ladakh, deepen its footprint in Gilgit-Baltistan, and launch the China–Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) through Indian sovereign soil.
VI. Article 370: From Vestigial Relic to Political Burial
a.) Abrogation of Article 370: Restoring Constitutional Sovereignty
On 5 August 2019, the Modi Government abrogated Article 370—a so-called temporary provision listed under Part XXI of the Constitution—which had, over the decades, acquired a quasi-permanent character through political timidity, judicial evasion, and administrative inertia. Originally introduced not through a formal constitutional amendment, but rather by a Presidential Order under Article 370(1)—first The Constitution (Application to Jammu and Kashmir) Order, 1950, and then the 1954 Order—this anomalous and anachronistic mechanism effectively allowed a single state's legislative assembly and the President of India to effectuate constitutional changes without parliamentary scrutiny.
Over time, Article 370 evolved into a constitutional anomaly that systematically eroded the sovereignty of the Indian Parliament, allowing the State of Jammu and Kashmir to retain a de facto autonomous status. Though originally envisaged as a transitional provision to enable orderly integration, it ossified into a vestigial organ—a constitutional cancer that fostered separatist sentiment, sustained dynastic misrule, and institutionalised resistance to national reform. Its prolonged survival was emblematic of India’s institutional hesitation, political diffidence, and constitutional ambivalence.
Worse still, Article 370’s continued existence enabled and emboldened Pakistan to craft and internationalise the narrative of Kashmir as a "disputed territory"—not only at multilateral forums such as the United Nations, but also within the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) and other transnational platforms sympathetic to its cause. Rather than facilitating integration, the Article became a legal fiction weaponised by an adversary, undermining both India’s territorial integrity and its diplomatic posture.
b.) Judicial Vindication and Political Finality
The historic abrogation by the Narendra Modi-led government was not merely an administrative manoeuvre but an epochal reaffirmation of India's constitutional unity. It restored the egalitarian structure of the Constitution and reclaimed Parliament’s plenary authority across all territories of the Indian Union, including Jammu, Kashmir, and Ladakh. The abrogation finally aligned territorial sovereignty with constitutional supremacy.
Those—particularly senior leaders of the Congress Party and assorted regional polemicists—who had long contended that Article 370 was inviolable, or that its abrogation would never survive judicial scrutiny, must now hold their peace in perpetuity. The Supreme Court of India, in its landmark judgment of December 2023, upheld the constitutional validity of the abrogation. It declared that Article 370 was temporary, had long outlived its utility, and that Parliament acted well within its sovereign legislative domain. This judgment not only closed the chapter on a lingering legal fiction but also reinforced India's territorial unity, democratic integrity, and constitutional finality.
Simultaneously, the state was reorganised into two Union Territories—Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh—with the latter being of strategic importance due to its geographical proximity to China's western frontier. Despite predictable protests from Pakistan and China, the move was domestically met with overwhelming public support. Even former Chief Ministers, such as Omar Abdullah, were compelled to confront the irreversibility of the new constitutional order—marking the beginning of the end for the politics of appeasement and exceptionalism.
VII. The Suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty: Hydrological Leverage
Following the Pahalgam massacre, India’s suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty in April 2025 marks a watershed moment in the subcontinent’s geopolitical calculus. As the upper riparian state, India exercises natural hydrological primacy over the Indus river system—a lifeline for Pakistan’s agriculture and potable water supply. For decades, India voluntarily refrained from exercising its full rights, honouring a colonial-era treaty signed in 1960 under World Bank auspices, at a time when India lacked both the technological infrastructure and financial capacity to construct its own dams and multipurpose river projects.
That restraint, however, no longer holds. The suspension of the treaty signals not just retaliation for cross-border terrorism, but a strategic recalibration of India’s water diplomacy—asserting sovereign entitlement to utilise its rivers for national development and regional leverage.
Immediate Implications:
Signal of India’s hardened posture in the face of cross-border terrorism.
Psychological blow to Pakistan’s narrative of moral high ground.
Restricting water to Pakistan from Baglihar Dam on Chenab and Kishanganga project on Jhelum.
Medium-Term Strategy:
Complete the projects under implementation, unfettered by the provisions of the IWT
Leverage water as a diplomatic tool in future negotiations.
Encourage internal dissent within PoK, especially over water-related grievances.
Long-Term Vision:
Reassert full sovereignty over PoK and Gilgit-Baltistan.
Build strategic reservoirs and infrastructure to reroute and manage water flows in India’s interest.
Usher in a renewed agri-revolution in J&K and water-deficient areas of Punjab through augmented canal water irrigation using water harnessed from the western rivers of Chenab, Jhelum and Indus.
VIII. Balochistan: The Hypocrisy Pakistan Cannot Hide
India must now unequivocally highlight Pakistan’s colonial-style repression in Balochistan—an area forcibly annexed in March 1948, just months after Partition. The systematic suppression of Baloch identity, enforced disappearances, and allegations of genocide deserve international condemnation.
By championing the Baloch cause, India can:
Undermine Pakistan’s moral pretensions.
Expose its duplicitous stance on “self-determination” in Kashmir.
Rally international opinion towards a pluralistic and rules-based order in South Asia.
IX. Home Minister’s Statement: A National Doctrine in the Making
When Home Minister Amit Shah declared in Parliament in April 2025 that “PoK is our” implying that it shall be integrated into India sooner than later, he was not merely echoing political rhetoric—he was articulating a doctrinal shift.
This signals the convergence of:
Constitutional Will: Backed by the 24 Assembly seats reserved for PoK in the J&K Legislative Assembly.
Military Readiness: Continued deployment and infrastructure build-up in Ladakh and along the LoC.
Diplomatic Strategy: Isolating Pakistan internationally while aligning with Western democracies and countering Chinese expansionism.
X. The Path Ahead: The Reunification Imperative
The cause of reclaiming Pakistan Occupied Kashmir (PoK) is no longer a distant dream—it has transformed into a strategic imperative. The era of hesitations, inherited from the post-colonial state’s Nehruvian ambivalence, is decisively over. Under the resolute leadership of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, India has moved from rhetorical lamentation to actionable assertion—on both the domestic front and the international stage.
Modi’s governance philosophy—rooted in constitutional clarity, national dignity, and geostrategic foresight—has provided India with the moral compass and political will to redress historical injustices. This assertiveness has been matched by India’s diplomatic dexterity, which has increasingly exposed Pakistan’s duplicity on global forums, while rallying support for India’s legitimate claims. The abrogation of Article 370, the reorganisation of Jammu & Kashmir, and the delimitation reserving Assembly seats for PoK refugees are clear signals that India no longer accepts the status quo as permanent or legitimate.
Credit is also due to Union Home Minister Amit Shah, whose unflinching clarity, both in Parliament and policy, has reinforced India’s intent. His bold pronouncement that “PoK is ours” is not mere political theatre—it is a doctrinal statement that reflects a shift in India’s strategic posture from defensive accommodation to proactive reunification.
Reunification—be it termed as reclaiming, reintegration, or restoration—is not merely a matter of recovering lost territory. It is a solemn act of restoring national honour, upholding the fundamental rights of the oppressed citizens of PoK, and fulfilling a sovereign pledge betrayed by history but now redeemed through political courage and constitutional resolve.
Correction: An earlier version of this article incorrectly attributed to Home Minister Amit Shah a definitive two-year time frame for the integration of Pakistan Occupied Kashmir (PoK) into the Union of India. The error has since been rectified. No such specific timeline was formally declared by the Home Minister.