The article emphasizes Pakistan’s commitment to AJK as a self-governing entity under its protection, advocating for a resolution of the Kashmir conflict based on the principles of self-determination and international law.
The Kashmir issue especially the status and the control of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK) has remained one of the most important and sensitive issues of Pakistan’s foreign policy. The position of Pakistan on AJK is based on historical background of the area, its strategic importance and the policy of Pakistan on the issue of Kashmir. While analyzing the Pakistani view on AJK, it is crucial to consider regional context, legal status of AJK, and social and economic issues of the area.
Pakistan considers AJK as a liberated territory, a part of the larger Jammu and Kashmir state that should, in Pakistan’s perception, determine its future through a free and impartial plebiscite as provided in the UN resolutions. From Pakistan’s point of view, the administration of AJK is designed in such a way to convey this message that AJK is not a province of Pakistan nor an independent country but an autonomous territory under the control of Pakistan. This governance structure is supposed to maintain the regional peculiarity, until the final status of the Kashmir issue is determined.
There are several differences that Pakistan uses to compare AJK with the Indian-administered Jammu and Kashmir (IIOJK) as follows: Perhaps one of the most important things that can be compared in this case is the political and civil freedoms of the people of AJK. Pakistan claims that while IIOJK continues to be under military rule and is frequently accused of human rights abuses by international bodies, AJK enjoys a large measure of autonomy where the people can speak their minds and vote for their leaders.
Economically, Pakistan emphasizes its commitment to the development of AJK even though the area is geographically difficult and the conflict persists. Education, health and other sectors have been developed in the form of infrastructure to raise the standard of living in AJK. Pakistan argues that these efforts, despite being hampered by a lack of funds and the volatile security environment, are evidence of its concern for the welfare of the people of Kashmir. The economic aid and development projects are used as evidence of Pakistan’s intention to prove that it wants AJK to be on par with the rest of the world, although the bigger picture is not as rosy.
The problem of security is another important aspect of Pakistan’s discourse on AJK. The military occupation of AJK by Pakistan is depicted as a security measure to safeguard the territory from any hostile forces especially India. Pakistan continues to argue that its military presence in AJK is strictly for defensive purposes, while India has heavily militarized IIOJK with the purpose of oppression of the local population. This security framework is one of the components of Pakistan’s overall policy to challenge what it considers India’s unlawful control of IIOJK and to protect the people of Kashmir.
Pakistan’s legal status of AJK also has strong connection with the international law and the UN Security Council resolutions. Pakistan continues to use these resolutions, which demand a self-determination vote in Jammu and Kashmir, to assert its sovereignty over AJK while denying India sovereignty over the entire territory. The Simla Agreement is frequently used by India to support the bilateral solution of the conflict, but Pakistan considers the UN resolutions as still valid. Pakistan continues to claim that the matter of Kashmir including AJK is an international question that needs a settlement in light of the wishes of the people of Kashmir.
However, there is also a diplomatic aspect of Pakistan’s relationship with AJK, in which Pakistan brings up the issue of Kashmir, including the status of AJK, to international organizations. Pakistan wants to mobilize the international community behind its position that the fate of Kashmir, including the AJK, should be determined through a plebiscite. This diplomatic activity is intended to respond to India’s narrative and maintain the focus on the Kashmir conflict, including the situation in AJK.
The socio-economic problems of AJK are recognized by Pakistan, which blames these problems on the conflict and the geographical conditions of the area. However, Pakistan emphasizes that it has been consistently working on these issues through the implementation of development projects. Education, health and infrastructure are the sectors in which the government of Pakistan has invested heavily in an attempt to improve the quality of life in the AJK. Nevertheless, Pakistan considers these attempts as proof of its concern for the people of AJK and their provision of the necessary assistance and services.
Thus, it can be concluded that the position of Pakistan regarding AJK is complex and includes legal, political, economic, and security aspects. Pakistan presents AJK as an autonomous region that is under its control but is still in a state of dispute with India, and the final status of the region is still to be decided by the United Nations and the people of Kashmir. This comparison with IIOJK is made to show the difference in governance, civil liberties, and development that Pakistan claims are in AJK’s favor. Thus, through its diplomatic activity, Pakistan wants to maintain the focus on the Kashmir conflict and the status of AJK, insisting on the recognition of the rights and desire of the Kashmiri people. It is understood that AJK has its problems, but Pakistan is willing to work through these problems in order to continue the development of this region despite the conflict.
Keywords:
Kashmir conflict, Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK), self-determination, United Nations resolutions, IIOJK (Indian-administered Jammu and Kashmir), political and civil liberties, economic development, infrastructure, militarization, security, international law, Simla Agreement, diplomatic efforts, socio-economic challenges, plebiscite, Pakistan’s foreign policy, geopolitical significance, human rights violations, self-governing entity, and international dispute.
