For over 70 years, Pakistan has portrayed the territory under its occupation as “Azad Kashmir”. According to the Pakistani narrative, this is supposedly a self-governing, autonomous entity that strives to embody the aspirations of the People of Jammu and Kashmir. This narrative has been central to Islamabad’s diplomatic campaign against New Delhi. This allows Pakistan to project itself as a champion of Kashmiri Rights while routinely criticising New Delhi’s policies in the region. However, the protests in the Pakistan-occupied Jammu and Kashmir (PoJK) have exposed the hollowness of this claim.
The last few weeks have seen mass protests, widespread arrests, internet shutdowns, restrictions on peaceful assemblies, and atrocities on civilians by Pakistani Security Forces. What began as protests over economic grievances has evolved into a wider expression of public frustration over decades of political marginalisation, economic neglect, and centralised control. Hence, demonstrating that Islamabad’s illegitimate control over the occupied territory rests less on political or democratic legitimacy but more on administrative and security coercion. These developments become strategically significant for India. They reinforce both internationally and domestically New Delhi’s long-held position that Pakistan has neither delivered meaningful autonomy nor representative governance in territories under its illegitimate occupation. More importantly, they expose a glaring contradiction: a state that claims to advocate self-determination in Jammu and Kashmir is itself confronting widespread dissent within the territory it unlawfully administers.
The So-Called “Azad Kashmir”: A Narrative Under Strain
India has consistently maintained that Pakistan-Occupied Jammu and Kashmir remains an integral part of India by virtue of the Instrument of Accession signed in October 1947. Pakistan’s control over the parts of the erstwhile princely state arose from the Indo-Pak War (1947-48) and has never altered India’s legal position. Against this backdrop, Islamabad’s description of the occupied territory as “Azad Kashmir” has long served as a political narrative intended to convey legitimacy and local autonomy. The institutional reality, however, conveys a different story. While the territory possesses elected representatives and institutions, authority over critical domains like defence, strategic policy, and foreign affairs remains concentrated in Islamabad. The Pakistani military continues to wield significant influence over security and political affairs, and Islamabad has ensured that constitutional arrangements have left limited scope for genuine local autonomy. Gilgit-Baltistan’s (another part of PoJK) unresolved constitutional status has further illustrated the inconsistency of Pakistan’s administrative approach, and the current political and social unrest has brought these contradictions into sharper focus than at any point in recent years.
The Current Unrest: A Crisis of Governance, Not Merely Economics
While the current protests might seem like a temporary reaction to rising electricity tariffs or inflation, the scope is wider. They are, in fact, a cumulative consequence and response to decades of government deficits. Residents of Pakistan-Occupied Jammu and Kashmir are asking questions that have been systematically suppressed over the years: Why does a region rich in hydropower resources continue to face high electricity costs, limited employment opportunities, and inadequate public infrastructure?
Concerns are echoing in the streets of the so-called Azad Kashmir. Islamabad’s responses follow the same old course, treating political and social dissent as a security problem.
Rather than engaging in a meaningful dialogue with the protestors (A mark of a successful democracy), the authorities of Islamabad are relying on arrests, internet shutdowns, as well as communication shutdowns, expanding security deployments, and banning the Joint Awami Action Committee (JAAC).
However, such measures only suppress demonstrations in the short term but echo larger undertones:
- They reinforce the perception that Pakistan’s authority in the occupied territory depends increasingly on coercive instruments and not the narrative of public consent.
- The so-called Azad Kashmir for Pakistan is only a strategic advantage; the well-being of civilians or the smooth functioning of its public administration is not the priority of Islamabad.
- Another important factor is that Pakistan uses PoJK as the launchpad for Pakistan’s proxy war against India. Over the years, India has brought to the attention that terrorist infrastructure, training camps, and infiltration routes are being operated from territories under Pakistan’s control. Pakistan’s illegal occupation due to strategic utility has become a priority over the welfare of the people living in the region.
Far from strengthening Islamabad’s position, the crackdown has drawn greater attention to the governance challenges confronting Islamabad in the so-called Azad Kashmir
Why PoJK Remains Central to India’s National Interests
For India, PoJK is far more than a disputed territory; it is an integral part of Jammu and Kashmir and India that remains under Pakistan’s illegal occupation, beyond the legal and institutional significance. PoJK occupies an important position in New Delhi’s security architecture, and its instability concerns India in a variety of ways.
- Strengthens India’s Diplomatic Argument Regionally and Internationally.
For decades, Pakistan has attempted to internationalise the Kashmir Issue by portraying itself as the defender of Kashmiri Aspirations. The current developments expose this false narrative. When residents of so-called Azad Kashmir themselves raise concerns over the Pakistani Administration, Islamabad faces greater scrutiny over its narrative and administrative record. India can thus uphold proof to its consistent position that the developments on the ground do not relate to the tall claims of Islamabad regarding political autonomy and democratic representation in the region.
- The China Factor
PoJK has acquired even a greater strategic importance, especially after the implementation of CPEC. Passing through the regions of Gilgit-Baltistan, the corridor provides China with direct access to the Arabian Sea while enhancing China’s footprint and strategic influence on a region that belongs to India. However, along with instability in Balochistan, persistent instability in PoJK carries huge implications for China’s economic and strategic interests. From New Delhi’s standpoint, the unrest in both regions underscores the vulnerabilities that are associated with infrastructure projects undertaken in countries that face constant internal instability, simultaneously highlighting the complexities arising from the growing China-Pakistan nexus in the region.
Hence, as reiterated earlier, these developments reinforce a long-standing legal and strategic position: Pakistan’s continued illegal occupation of strategic parts of India has neither resolved the local grievances nor produced stable governance and public administration. As New Delhi safeguards its interests along the Line of Control and advances development in Jammu and Kashmir, events in PoJK serve as a reminder that competing narratives are ultimately tested against realities on the ground, and the reality of the so-called Azad Kashmir is becoming increasingly difficult for Islamabad to explain.
