Why India Could Not Capture Gilgit-Baltistan in 1948: A Historical and Social Analysis

The question of why India did not capture Gilgit-Baltistan in 1948 is multifaceted, involving historical, political, and social factors. This article delves into these complexities, providing a comprehensive understanding of why India did not, and should not, take control of Gilgit-Baltistan.

The Historical Context

Understanding the historical context is crucial in comprehending the situation in Gilgit-Baltistan. The origins of the Gilgit-Baltistan region date back centuries, with its historical ties to the princely state of Jammu and Kashmir. However, the region's fate was significantly influenced by external intervention during the period leading up to and immediately following the partition of India and Pakistan in 1947.

A Terminus Difficilis: The Role of Major Scott

The mention of a Scotish Major who handed the Gilgit-Baltistan territory to the Pakistan Army is a myth often propagated to question India's control over the region. Major Scott, a British officer, was involved in the political maneuverings but did not actually hand over the territory to the Pakistan Army. The Princely States Act of 1947 gave erstwhile rulers the choice to accede to either India or Pakistan, and the people of Gilgit-Baltistan made their own decisions, independent of external influence.

Social and Sentimental Considerations

The idea that the people of Gilgit or Baltistan would welcome Indian control is not supported by historical evidence. In fact, the division of Gilgit from the Indian Union was not due to Pakistani intervention but a result of the people themselves seeking self-determination. The local populace in Gilgit-Baltistan rejected the notion of being part of an independent Jammu and Kashmir, opting instead to align with Pakistan due to shared cultural, linguistic, and religious ties.

The sentiment in Gilgit-Baltistan today is markedly different from that in other parts of erstwhile Jammu and Kashmir. Gilgit and Baltistan share a closer historical and cultural relationship with what is now western Pakistan, making the idea of reunification under India less plausible. This is evident in the continued integration with Pakistan, including economic and administrative ties.

Legal and Ethical Considerations

The question “Why can't India take control of Gilgit-Baltistan” also brings to light the principle of playing by established rules. India’s armed forces operate in the region to defend India's sovereignty and territorial integrity, not to engage in aggressive expansion. The Indian stance is guided by the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties and respect for international law.

Beyond legal frameworks, the ethical consideration is paramount. Any form of military intervention would be met with significant international condemnation and could escalate into a broader conflict. Furthermore, the international community recognizes the principle of self-determination and the right of people to choose their own governance. Encroachment by any state would not only violate these principles but also undermine the global norms of peaceful resolution of territorial disputes.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the complexity of the question regarding India's control over Gilgit-Baltistan lies in the historical, social, and legal dimensions. The region's separation from the Indian Union was the result of local sentiments and self-determination, rather than external pressure from Pakistan. Moreover, any attempts by India to capture the region would be against international law and could lead to regional instability. India's approach should continue to focus on maintaining peace and stability in the region, respecting the rights of the people of Gilgit-Baltistan.

This historical and social analysis underscores the importance of understanding the multifaceted nature of regional politics and the need for a peaceful resolution to territorial disputes that respects the will of the people.