Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (POK) stands as one of the most contentious and strategically vital regions in South Asia. Positioned at the core of the protracted conflict between India and Pakistan, the territory has been the focal point of several military confrontations, sustained diplomatic impasses, and ongoing cross-border tensions for over seventy years. For India, the significance of POK extends beyond historical and constitutional claims; it represents a critical geostrategic imperative central to national security, regional stability, and broader geopolitical interests.
The origins of this dispute are rooted in the chaotic circumstances of the 1947 partition of British India. The princely state of Jammu and Kashmir, under the Hindu ruler Maharaja Hari Singh, faced a violent incursion by tribal militias backed by Pakistan. In response, the Maharaja signed the Instrument of Accession to India, prompting military intervention by Indian forces. The subsequent conflict culminated in a United Nations-brokered ceasefire in 1949, resulting in the delineation of the Line of Control (LoC) and the effective division of the territory. Since then, India has maintained its legal claim over the entire region of Jammu and Kashmir, a position reinforced by the Indian Parliament’s unanimous resolution in 1994 and further consolidated by the abrogation of Article 370 in 2019, which constitutionally integrated the region into the Indian Union.
Beyond its historical and legal dimensions, POK holds immense geostrategic value. It shares borders with Pakistan, China, and Afghanistan, positioning it at a pivotal geopolitical crossroad. The region’s mountainous terrain confers significant military advantages—providing surveillance capabilities, artillery dominance, and logistical flexibility. Moreover, POK has long served as a launching ground for Pakistan-supported terrorist infiltrations into Indian territory, thereby intensifying its relevance to Indian national security doctrine.
Hydrologically, POK commands critical importance as well. Three of the five major rivers in the Indus Basin—the Indus, Jhelum, and Chenab—traverse this territory. While the 1960 Indus Waters Treaty granted India limited rights over these rivers, Indian policymakers have increasingly questioned the rationale of upholding the treaty in the face of persistent cross-border terrorism. Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s 2016 assertion that “blood and water cannot flow together” encapsulated the growing sentiment that resource sovereignty cannot be decoupled from national security.
Compounding these challenges is the growing involvement of China in the region through the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), a flagship project under Beijing’s Belt and Road Initiative. CPEC cuts through Gilgit-Baltistan, a region India considers part of POK, raising serious sovereignty concerns. India’s objections to CPEC are grounded not merely in legal claims but in strategic anxiety over a potential axis of collusion between China and Pakistan. This concern was heightened by Beijing’s explicit warning during India’s Operation Sindoor, where it stated it would not tolerate any perceived violation of Pakistan’s territorial integrity. Such declarations underscore the strategic depth China is acquiring in the region—complicating India’s conventional military options and widening the scope of the conflict.
Despite Pakistan’s portrayal of POK as an autonomous entity under the designation “Azad Jammu and Kashmir,” the region remains under tight control from Islamabad. Institutions in POK lack genuine self-governance, and Gilgit-Baltistan, in particular, is marked by political disenfranchisement and limited civil liberties. International human rights organizations have repeatedly reported on systemic repression, poor infrastructure, and limited access to quality education and healthcare in the region. This stands in contrast to recent developments in Indian-administered Jammu and Kashmir, where post-2019 policy initiatives have emphasized infrastructure development, governance reforms, and socio-economic integration. India increasingly promotes this model as a benchmark for regional progress and stability.
In parallel with these socio-political developments, India’s strategic doctrine has undergone a visible transformation. Where once Indian responses to provocations were marked by restraint, recent years have witnessed a shift toward assertiveness. The surgical strikes in 2016 and the Balakot airstrike in 2019 reflected not just tactical successes but an evolving doctrine that perceives state-sponsored terrorism as an act of war warranting proportionate retaliation. This shift underscores India’s readiness to impose costs on state actors that enable or execute sub-conventional warfare under the guise of plausible deniability.
Yet the path to reclaiming POK is fraught with complexities. A full-scale military operation to wrest control from Pakistan, while theoretically possible, is constrained by the risk of nuclear escalation and the geopolitical fallout of inviting external intervention—particularly from China. Consequently, India may opt for limited tactical operations—such as precision strikes against terrorist infrastructure or occupation of dominating terrain—under the legal framework of self-defence. These operations, if grounded in credible intelligence and proportionality, can be framed within international norms.
On the diplomatic front, India must persist in exposing the illegitimacy of Pakistan’s occupation and the human rights situation in POK. While the international community has traditionally refrained from taking explicit positions on territorial disputes, a sustained narrative emphasizing democratic governance, human rights, and rule of law could help shift global perceptions. Concurrently, India’s best long-term instrument may lie in soft power—demonstrating success through development in Jammu and Kashmir to create a contrast that appeals to the people of POK. A politically stable, economically vibrant, and inclusive Indian Kashmir could serve as a catalyst for political awakening and disillusionment with Islamabad’s governance in POK.
An additional strategic variable is Pakistan’s internal stability. The country’s economic vulnerabilities, coupled with sectarian strife and institutional fragility, present a latent opportunity. In the event of internal fragmentation or political upheaval in Pakistan, secessionist or autonomous movements in POK may gain momentum. India must be prepared for such a contingency with a doctrine that emphasizes diplomatic engagement, legal clarity, and adherence to constitutional principles—eschewing adventurism while being strategically agile.
The international environment is also undergoing transformation. The global consensus against terrorism, concerns over China’s assertiveness, and India’s rising profile as a responsible regional power have gradually shifted the balance of normative legitimacy in India’s favor. By engaging proactively with global powers—including the United States, European Union, France, and Gulf states—India can consolidate international support against Pakistan’s continued occupation of POK. India’s commitment to democratic norms, pluralism, and sustainable development reinforces its position as a natural partner in the liberal international order.
Ultimately, Pakistan-occupied Kashmir is not merely a cartographic claim; it embodies the convergence of strategic imperatives, constitutional responsibility, and moral conviction. As India seeks to transition from a regional power to a global actor, its approach to POK must reflect a nuanced balance of power, principle, and pragmatism. The objective of reclaiming POK is no longer confined to emotional rhetoric; it is increasingly becoming a matter of strategic inevitability. Whether this is achieved through diplomatic outreach, socio-economic differentiation, internal political shifts within Pakistan, or measured military actions will depend on how regional and global dynamics evolve. As former National Security Adviser Shivshankar Menon aptly observed, “Strategic patience must be backed by strategic capability.” India now possesses the institutional, economic, and diplomatic capacity to shape the discourse, assert its claims, and pursue the eventual integration of POK into the Indian constitutional fold through a strategy that is assertive, lawful, and globally resonant.
