“Vacate PoK”: India’s explosive rebuttal to Pakistan’s ‘jugular vein’ Kashmir claim

Why did India strongly rebut the Pakistan Army Chief’s Kashmir remarks?

India issued a forceful rebuttal to Pakistan Army Chief General Asim Munir’s recent remarks describing Kashmir as the “jugular vein” of Pakistan, asserting instead that Pakistan’s only association with Jammu and Kashmir is its obligation to vacate the territories it currently occupies unlawfully. The Indian Ministry of External Affairs categorically rejected General Munir’s comments, calling them misleading and provocative, and reaffirmed India’s stance on the territorial integrity of Jammu and Kashmir.

The diplomatic exchange reflects a persistent fault line in India-Pakistan relations, with Kashmir remaining a flashpoint since the partition of British India in 1947. General Munir’s speech during an event in Islamabad, where he reiterated Pakistan’s support for the Kashmiri people and called the region Pakistan’s “jugular vein,” prompted a sharp and immediate response from New Delhi. The Indian government emphasized that such characterizations are not only historically inaccurate but also infringe upon India’s sovereignty.

India’s rebuttal, delivered by Ministry of External Affairs spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal, underscored that Jammu and Kashmir is and will remain an integral part of India. He stated that Pakistan has no locus standi on the matter, and reiterated that Islamabad must vacate Pakistan-Occupied-Kashmir (PoK), referring to the part of the region Pakistan has controlled since the first Indo-Pak war in 1947–48.

What is the historical dispute over Pakistan-Occupied-Kashmir?

The territorial dispute over Jammu and Kashmir stems from the 1947 partition of British India into two sovereign states, India and Pakistan. The princely state of Jammu and Kashmir, under Maharaja Hari Singh, acceded to India in October 1947 after Pakistani tribal militias invaded the region. This led to the first India-Pakistan war. Following a United Nations-brokered ceasefire in 1949, Pakistan retained control over a portion of the region now referred to by India as Pakistan-Occupied-Kashmir.

Since then, the Kashmir dispute has remained unresolved, with Pakistan continuing to assert that the region should be part of its territory on the basis of its Muslim-majority population. India, meanwhile, maintains that the Instrument of Accession signed by the Maharaja was final and legal under international law. Over the decades, both countries have fought multiple wars and engaged in numerous diplomatic confrontations over the issue.

India has consistently maintained that any attempt by Pakistan to internationalize the Kashmir issue is a violation of bilateral agreements such as the Simla Agreement of 1972 and the Lahore Declaration of 1999. These agreements affirm that issues between the two countries will be resolved bilaterally and do not require third-party mediation.

How has Pakistan used rhetoric on Kashmir in the past, and what is India’s response?

Pakistan has frequently used emotive rhetoric regarding Kashmir to rally domestic and international support. Labeling Kashmir as the “jugular vein” has been a recurring metaphor in Pakistani political and military discourse, used by leaders to emphasize the perceived centrality of the region to Pakistan’s identity and security. This terminology was also used by Pakistan’s founder, Muhammad Ali Jinnah, to underline his belief that Kashmir’s rivers and geography were critical to Pakistan’s survival.

However, India has consistently dismissed such rhetoric as baseless and inflammatory. Indian officials have often pointed out that Pakistan’s emphasis on Kashmir diverts attention from more pressing internal challenges and human rights issues within its own borders.

India also accuses Pakistan of fomenting cross-border terrorism as part of its Kashmir policy. Indian governments have repeatedly argued that Islamabad’s support for militant groups operating in Jammu and Kashmir undermines any credible claim it might make about championing the welfare of the Kashmiri people.

What is the significance of India’s reference to ‘vacating’ Pakistan-Occupied-Kashmir?

India’s use of the term “vacate” in relation to Pakistan-Occupied-Kashmir signals a more assertive stance that has gained prominence in recent years, especially after the Indian government’s decision to abrogate Article 370 in August 2019. That constitutional move removed the special autonomous status of Jammu and Kashmir and reorganized the state into two union territories: Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh.

Since then, Indian political leaders, including members of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), have repeatedly spoken about reclaiming PoK as part of India’s sovereign territory. The use of the term “vacate” is grounded in Parliament’s 1994 resolution, which stated that the entire territory of Jammu and Kashmir, including areas under Pakistani control, belongs to India.

Although India has not initiated any formal military action to regain PoK, the diplomatic language has become increasingly assertive. The latest statement from the Ministry of External Affairs reflects this strategic posture and aims to discredit Pakistan’s narrative in the international arena.

How does this exchange affect India-Pakistan relations amid ongoing tensions?

The back-and-forth over Kashmir between New Delhi and Islamabad highlights the fragile nature of India-Pakistan relations. Since the Pulwama terror attack and the Balakot airstrikes in 2019, diplomatic ties have remained cold, with few signs of meaningful dialogue.

Pakistan downgraded diplomatic ties and suspended trade with India following the revocation of Jammu and Kashmir’s special status. India, on its part, has accused Pakistan of continuing to sponsor cross-border terrorism and has imposed stricter counter-terrorism measures along the Line of Control (LoC).

International efforts to mediate the Kashmir issue have largely been rebuffed by India, which views the matter as strictly bilateral. Meanwhile, the global community, including the United Nations and key Western powers, has largely refrained from interfering beyond calling for restraint and a peaceful resolution.

Given this context, General Munir’s comments are seen in India as part of a broader Pakistani attempt to rekindle international attention on the Kashmir issue. India’s firm response seeks to reinforce its position that Pakistan must cease its occupation of PoK and end support for terrorism before any discussions can take place.

What lies ahead in the Kashmir dispute following the latest diplomatic spat?

The verbal clash between India and Pakistan underscores how deeply entrenched positions on Kashmir continue to shape the broader geopolitical climate in South Asia. With national elections on the horizon in both countries over the next year, rhetoric around sovereignty and security is likely to intensify.

For India, the assertion that Pakistan must vacate Pakistan-Occupied-Kashmir is not merely a rhetorical flourish but part of a broader diplomatic and ideological campaign to reinforce its legal claim over the entire region. In contrast, Pakistan’s consistent invocation of Kashmir as a “jugular vein” appears intended to solidify domestic support and emphasize its strategic interest in the area.

Despite mounting international concerns over regional stability, neither side appears willing to compromise on fundamental positions. The Kashmir issue, therefore, remains locked in a complex interplay of nationalism, historical grievances, and security concerns—making any resolution in the near term highly unlikely.

India’s reaffirmation that the only pending matter is the return of Pakistan-Occupied-Kashmir reflects its intent to firmly counter any narratives that challenge its sovereignty. This stance, increasingly reinforced in global forums and bilateral discussions, signals that New Delhi sees no room for ambiguity in its claim over Jammu and Kashmir.