Taking PoK is all well and good, but can we keep it? The population is 4.2 million. Assuming even 1% of the locals take up arms against us, we're talking about 42,000 armed militants. It's proximity to Khyber Pakhtunkhwa means foreign terrorists and weapons can be smuggled in easily in large numbers before the border is secured. Building a fence will take some time. Assuming they can get in 20,000 well trained terrorists, ISI operatives and SSG commandos for training local militias, we're going to have a big problem. Air power and armour might need to be used, and the government cannot be concerned about PR and optics if they want to keep PoK. And with the new pak border, Kashmir valley and PoK combined, we'll need well over 500,000 (?) troops to combat threats.
I think we need to take the initiative and resort to unconventional warfare. There will be people on both sides of the spectrum and in the middle in PoK. Against India and Pakistan respectively. Use the lessons learnt with the failed LTTE experiment and get things right this time. And get the PoK leadership on our payroll. They can be made to accede to India, when Pakistan has enough to worry about internally and in PoK as well, and cannot sustain the costs or manpower involved with preventing the accession.
I'd like to hear your opinion on this
@Falcon , sir.
@vstol Jockey @Milspec, your inputs would also be much appreciated.