Originally Posted by blain2
Which is what i think is best anyway, contrary to what the good Brigadier wants. In Siachen, IA occupies the majority of the area, most of the cliff's and significantly all of the important/strategic cliff's are held by India. In Kashmir, India has 2/3rd, which i think is quite alright. It ensures in a conflict, India gains some sort of better starting and staging point.
I'd have been good, if India had been able to cut off the KKH, put a wedge b/w China and Pak, but thats just as always 'what could have been' and not what the reality is ! lol.
You know, even if India were to somehow take ***, it would be a disaster, the local population would rebel, which would mean the single biggest insurgency in India. So that option's basically out realistically speaking, though India still claims the rest. And you see this is recognized as well by Indian govt, you dont see them parading around saying *** is ours.
So the current AGP's according to me should most definitely be held on, without going back an inch. The status quo per me, suits India perfectly.
Question: Why is P-O-K banned? When IoK is very acceptable? Both countries have different terminologies to refer to the respective lands. Banning it here would not change anything. Or saying it Azad Kashmir, doesnt mean accepting that its 'Azad' from India. I think this is a case to say--'grow up'!