The chickens of Pakistan’s hypocrisy and opportunistic policy on Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) are coming home to roost. POJK has increasingly been the scene of serious civil unrest against Pakistan’s misgovernance, exploitation and violation of human rights.
Ruled as a fiefdom
Pakistan has constituted the areas of J&K illegally occupied by it into two units: the so-called “Azad Jammu and Kashmir or AJK” (area a little over 13000 square kilometers, population 4.4 million) and the strategically more important, the so-called “Gilgit-Baltistan” or “GB” (area approximately 72000 square kilometers and population of less than 2 million).
The so-called “AJK” is anything but azad (free). Governed as a colony since 1947, it was given the façade of a constitution and parliamentary system of governance in 1974. Elections to its 53-member legislative assembly have been routinely rigged and only governments acceptable to the Pakistani establishment allowed to survive. 12 seats reserved for the so-called “refugees” from the areas of Jammu and Kashmir on the Indian side, living in Pakistan, have been used by the establishment to manipulate numbers in the assembly. The real authority vests in the “AJK Council” headed by the Prime Minister of Pakistan, which exercises control over all critical areas of governance, including the natural resources of the territory. The oath of office of all high functionaries requires them to state, inter alia, that they will remain loyal to Pakistan and the cause of accession of J&K to it. This is a travesty of Pakistan’s claim that it wants the future of J&K to be decided through a plebiscite.
Politically, “GB” has been worse off than “AJK”. Pakistan has deliberately kept its status ambiguous. On the one hand, it has tried to claim that this territory is not part of J&K, but on the other, it has not given it a status under the constitution of Pakistan in order not to compromise Pakistan’s national position on the future of J&K. Thus, claiming that this territory was not part of J&K and not in dispute, Zia ul Haq extended his martial law to it, but not to “AJK”. In a judgment delivered in 1993, the “AJK” High Court deemed this territory to be part of “AJK”, but its ruling was overturned by the Pakistan Supreme Court the following year. In 1999, the Supreme Court of Pakistan ruled in the Al-Jehad Trust case that the people of “GB” were entitled to fundamental rights and an independent judiciary.
Dubbed as “Northern Areas” and administered directly by the Government of Pakistan, including through the draconian Frontier Crimes Regulations, GB was given a veneer of self-governance (with a legislative assembly and cabinet of ministers headed by a Chief Minister) and its current name through an order issued by the President of Pakistan in 2009. In the face of continued resentment of the people of this area against the legal limbo in which they were placed, the then Nawaz Sharif government set up a committee in 2015 under Foreign Affairs Advisor Sartaj Aziz to address the constitutional rights of “GB”. In 2017, the committee recommended grant of provisional status of a province to GB “pending the final settlement of the Kashmir dispute”, and its representation in both houses of Parliament as well as other constitutional bodies. The government, however, applied the recommendations of the committee selectively in 2018 and in the process rolled back some of the powers granted by the 2009 Presidential order to the territory. In 2019, the Pakistan Supreme Court ruled that the residents of GB were entitled to the same fundamental rights as other citizens of Pakistan and recommended that the government take steps to grant GB a provisional constitutional status. However, in spite of these developments, the territory continues to be in a legal limbo, with the real authority exercised by the Government of Pakistan. The Prime Minister of Pakistan can override the decisions of the GB assembly. Periodic elections to the GB assembly have been rigged by the Pakistani establishment and there have been allegations of rigging concerning the last election held on June 7 this year.
Economic Exploitation
POJK, particularly “GB”, is home to rich resources such as precious and semi-precious stones, precious and base metals, industrial minerals, forestry resources, some rare earth elements and a substantial hydroelectric potential. However, little benefit of these resources has flowed to the local people. Thus, in spite of housing two large hydroelectric projects – Mangla Dam and Neelum Jhelum- “AJK” has seen long power cuts. Like in Balochistan, Pakistan has used Chinese capital and technology to exploit the economic potential of POJK. Thus, besides its involvement in the construction and upgradation of the Karakoram Highway, China has been involved in building some other key roads, the Neelum Jhelum hydroelectric project and Diamer-Bhasha Dam on Indus in “GB”.
Heavy-handed approach in response to people’s demands
Once again like in Balochistan, the Government of Pakistan has all along used force and intimidation, instead of political means, to address the demands and grievances of the people in POJK. “AJK” got considerable international exposure after the devastating 2005 earthquake. A report issued by Human Rights Watch in 2006 referred, inter alia, to close watch by the Pakistan army on the local people, regular use of torture by the security agencies and tight control over freedom of expression. The same approach has been used by the authorities in “GB”. Its demography has been changed over the years to the detriment of its Shia majority. Pakistan’s prominent civil society organization, Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, has also brought to light violations of human rights in POJK from time to time.
Civil Unrest in POJK
POJK has been witness to civil unrest over the years against misgovernance, brutal policies of the Pakistani authorities, lack of genuine democracy and political rights. However, the phases of agitation have become more frequent and intense in recent years due to accumulated unaddressed grievances and the emergence of a new generation that is educated, technologically savvy and connected and politically conscious.
Thus, “GB” has seen agitation against its constitutional ambiguity. In late 2022 and early 2023, there were widespread protests against regulations on land rights, taxes, availability of electricity and reduction in the quantity of subsidized wheat provided to the people. There were large scale protests again in October 2023 against filing of a blasphemy case against a prominent Shia cleric. The protestors blocked Karakoram Highway for three days. There was agitation again on the wheat subsidy issue in late 2023 and early 2024. In 2025, local traders protested against restrictions on Pakistan-China border trade.
In 2023, civil rights groups – including those of lawyers, traders, students and transporters- came together in “AJK” to form ‘Jammu Kashmir Joint Awami Action Committee’ (JAAC). It put out a 38-point charter of demands including reduced utility costs, continued provision of subsidized wheat flour, payment of royalty for the locally produced electricity, governance reforms, improved public services, abolition of privileges of the political elite and bureaucracy, abolition of the aforementioned 12 seats reserved for the so-called “refugees”, strengthening of democracy and accountability in public administration.
JAAC has demonstrated an exceptional organizational ability to mount agitation in favour of its demands in 2023, 2024 and 2025. The recent phase of unrest and violence in “AJK” has been the most serious and commenced with the killing of a trader by the security forces. It has come in the backdrop of the government dragging its feet on abolition of the aforementioned 12 assembly seats (the issue has acquired greater urgency due to the election scheduled in the territory on July 27) and the banning of JAAC by the government in early June. Due to the media blackout imposed by the authorities, information coming out is sketchy. But at least twenty civilians and four security personnel have been killed and several others injured. There have been reports of continued shutter down strike in various part of the territory and a sit in at Rawalakot. There have also been reports of obstruction of movement of trucks carrying essential supplies, with the authorities and agitators blaming each other for it. The authorities have imposed curfew, ordered internet bans and blocked some key roads. They have arrested a number of JAAC leaders and activists and filed sedition charges against them.
Ironically, Pakistan, which used to mobilise opinion among the Mirpuri diaspora in Britain and the political circles there against India, is now at the receiving end of criticism from the same circles at its brutal policies in “AJK”.
India and POJK
India has all along maintained that Jammu and Kashmir is its integral part; POJK being part of J&K is under Pakistan’s illegal occupation and needs to be restituted to India. The Indian Parliament resolution of February 1994 reiterated this stand. Such discussions as have taken place with Pakistan from time to time to find an out of box solution to the J&K issue have been without prejudice to this position. India returned the areas taken by it in POJK during the 1965 war to Pakistan under the Tashkent agreement. However, after the 1971 war, the Simla Agreement provided, inter alia, that in Jammu and Kashmir, the line of control resulting from the ceasefire of December 17, 1971 shall be respected by both sides. According to the account of P.N.Dhar, a senior aide of Mrs Indira Gandhi, in his book “Indira Gandhi, the ‘Emergency’, and Indian Democracy”, the Indian Prime Minister and Zulfikar Ali Bhutto discussed freezing of the existing territorial reality in J&K into a de jure position at Shimla in 1972. Bhutto promised that this would be done in due course, but did not deliver on the promise subsequently. Dhar states that Mrs. Gandhi was herself worried that a formal withdrawal of the Indian claim on POK could create political trouble for her. The broad logic of the backchannel discussions of 2004-07 between India and Pakistan was also that after three wars and long periods of disagreements, it was essential that any agreement must ensure that the LoC is like a border between any two normal states and there can be no redrawal of borders.
In the face of Pakistan’s obduracy, India’s position on POJK has hardened in recent years and it has been stated by the government that any future discussions with Pakistan will be on the return of POJK, besides cross border terrorism from that country. A hope has also been expressed at times that POJK will return to India due to the impact of the aspirations of its people to remerge with India.
It is clear that taking POJK back by force would entail a war in which India will be pitted not only against Pakistan, but also China because of its important equities in “GB”. Further, in spite of the seriousness of unrest in POJK against Pakistan’s misgovernance and exploitation, there is no clear indication of any demand, let alone a groundswell, in favour of merging with India. There have been a few pro-India voices of some activists based in Europe, but once again it is not clear how representative they are of the local sentiment. Overlooking its own misdeeds, Islamabad has reflexively and unjustifiably blamed India for the ongoing unrest in “AJK”. Given Pakistan’s high-handed policies, the situation could worsen. India will have to keep a close eye on it.
India’s reaction to the latest phase of unrest in “AJK”
India has over the years highlighted the plight of the people of POJK in various international forums and protested the political and demographic changes made by Pakistan in this illegally occupied territory. Responding to queries during a media briefing in the wake of the latest break out of unrest in early June, the spokesperson of the Ministry of External Affairs rejected Pakistan’s unwarranted allegations of Indian involvement, took note of the police brutality resulting in killing and injuring of several people and expressed the hope that the international community would hold Pakistan accountable for its misdeeds and abuses. Separately, exercising the right of reply against references to J&K made by Pakistan and OIC in the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva, India specifically referred to the recent events in POJK resulting from decades of military domination, land grabs and denial of freedoms, and called upon Pakistan to address the situation in the areas of J&K under its illegal occupation instead of raising allegations against India.
However, given India’s claim to POJK, which has been voiced repeatedly and emphatically by the Indian government in recent years, Pakistan’s continuing obduracy in not adopting a constructive path vis a vis India and the growing agitation by the people of POJK against Pakistan’s crimes, there is a case for India taking up the issue of gross violation of human rights in POJK more forcefully in the relevant international forums.
The previous issue of A Year of Operation Sindoor are available here
