The
Ceasefire Is Not a Deal to Be Celebrated—India Could Have Escalated to PoK“He who hesitates is lost,” said Chanakya. India must
remember—history does not favour the moralist. It favours the mover.
When India and Pakistan issued a joint statement in February
2021 to reaffirm their 2003 ceasefire agreement along the Line of Control
(LoC), mainstream narratives hailed it as a diplomatic breakthrough. But under
the surface of this seemingly prudent gesture lay a troubling possibility: India
might have prematurely closed a window to reclaim its stolen geography —
Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK).
This wasn’t just about shells and silence. It was about
momentum, morality, and mandate. In a rare moment, all three were aligned. Yet,
instead of seizing the initiative, India chose restraint. And history has
taught us this: the cost of restraint is often paid not in peace but in regret.
The Strategic High Ground
In the years leading up to 2021, India found itself in an
unprecedented position of strength. The Pulwama attack and the Balakot
airstrikes that followed had galvanised national will. Cross-border strikes had
proven feasible. The international community, largely fatigued by Pakistan’s
terror duplicity, was less inclined to condemn Indian retaliation and more
willing to listen.
The revocation of Article 370 in August 2019 had further
shifted the narrative. For the first time, India was not merely defending its
claim on Kashmir — it was reinforcing it through legislative assertion and
administrative integration.
On the other hand, Pakistan was internally bleeding:
- An
economic crisis loomed.
- Civil-military
tensions were rising.
- Imran
Khan’s government was losing credibility fast.
- China
was quietly watching, but not eager to entangle further post-Galwan.
The strategic timing was ideal for a limited escalation into
PoK — not to wage a reckless war, but to call the bluff of seven decades.
Instead, the ceasefire gave Pakistan a desperately needed
breather, not just to regroup militarily, but to revive terror ecosystems,
reassert diplomatic deniability, and shift focus to internationalizing Kashmir
again through softer, passive-aggressive means.
The Ghosts of History
This isn't the first time India has erred on the side of
restraint.
- In
1948, after Indian forces had managed to reclaim large parts of Jammu and
Kashmir from Pakistani tribal invaders, Prime Minister Nehru took the
dispute to the UN — freezing Indian troops mid-victory and gifting PoK to
Pakistan in perpetuity.
- In
1965, India repelled a full-scale invasion and reached within striking
distance of Lahore. Yet, the Tashkent Agreement saw India return all
conquered territory for little in return.
- In
1999, India fought a limited war in Kargil. Despite the enemy’s blatant
transgression and brutalization of Indian soldiers, Indian forces were
barred from crossing the LoC to chase retreating intruders. Victory
remained incomplete.
Each time, India chose the "moral high ground."
But morality without results becomes an albatross, not a crown.
The 2021 ceasefire may be written as a diplomatic maturity.
But maturity without assertion is simply paralysis in disguise.
The Legal and Moral Imperative
PoK is Not a Grey Zone
Let’s be clear — PoK is not a disputed territory. It is
Indian territory under illegal occupation. The 1994 Indian Parliament
resolution leaves no ambiguity: PoK is an integral part of India.
Then why has India made peace with silence? Why does the
nation that once dreamed of flying the tricolour in Gilgit now use diplomacy as
a blanket for inaction?
The people of PoK have suffered for decades. Basic rights
are denied. Gilgit-Baltistan’s resources are plundered. Political repression is
routine. Pakistani military establishment uses the region as a launching pad
for terror — both ideologically and physically.
By choosing to "hold the fire," India also chose,
implicitly, to let this suffering continue.
If India's legitimacy over PoK is unquestionable, then its
silence is a betrayal — of its Constitution, of its history, and of the people
of PoK themselves.
Escalation Isn’t Recklessness—It’s Resolution
To be clear, this is not an argument for blind war.
Escalation does not mean a full-scale invasion.
Rather, it’s about leveraging momentum:
- A
show of force to seize limited tactical ground in PoK.
- A
covert-ops framework to dismantle terror camps surgically.
- An
information campaign to expose Pakistan's colonial grip over
Gilgit-Baltistan.
Had India done so post-2019, global conditions may have been
supportive, or at least neutral. Today, the narrative is slipping again — and
time favours the one who moves, not the one who hesitates.
Pakistan uses every ceasefire to rebuild, re-strategies, and
relaunch. India uses it to celebrate restraint and hope morality will win the
day. It won't.
Peace With Honour, Not Peace With Hesitation
India must understand that peace without resolution is
simply delay. The ceasefire of 2021 may have brought temporary calm, but it
cost India something far greater — the opportunity to correct a historical
wrong.
In Mahabharata, Krishna did not preach peace at all costs.
When negotiations failed, he urged Arjuna to fight — not for bloodlust, but for
dharma.
Today, India's dharma lies in reclaiming what is rightfully
hers — not just to redraw borders, but to reassert the very idea of India as a
sovereign, assertive civilisation that no longer accepts partition, terror, or
cowardice as fate.
"Time Favours the bold. History rewards the
resolute. Ceasefire may have been a pause—but the next chapter must begin with
purpose."
