The special status of AJK is largely defined by the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act of 1974, which outlines its governance framework and its relationship with Pakistan. Though the Constitution of Pakistan does not provide detailed references to AJK, it includes several provisions that touch on its political and constitutional position. In Article 1, the Constitution of Pakistan recognizes AJK as a special territory, along with Gilgit-Baltistan, within Pakistan’s territorial framework, though it is not considered a full-fledged province.
Article 257 of the Pakistani Constitution addresses the legal relationship between Pakistan and Jammu and Kashmir, stating that the region’s final status is to be determined by a plebiscite in accordance with United Nations Security Council resolutions. This article also reaffirms Pakistan’s commitment to supporting the people of Jammu and Kashmir in their pursuit of self-determination. While this affirms Pakistan’s claim over the region, it also allows AJK a certain level of autonomy within the broader structure of Pakistan.
Article 45 of the Constitution, which grants the President of Pakistan the power to grant pardons, is also relevant to AJK’s legal framework. However, because of the constitutional distinction between Pakistan and AJK, the President’s powers are confined to matters under federal jurisdiction. AJK operates with its own political leadership, including a President, Prime Minister, and legislative assembly.
In addition to the Constitution of Pakistan, AJK is governed primarily by the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974. This law establishes an autonomous government with its own President, Prime Minister, and Assembly, while ensuring the protection of the rights and freedoms of AJK’s people. It also acknowledges that the region’s ultimate status is tied to the resolution of the Kashmir dispute. AJK’s legislative assembly has the authority to legislate on most matters within the region, except for those relating to defense, foreign affairs, and other federal matters under Pakistan’s jurisdiction. The Prime Minister of Azad Jammu and Kashmir, appointed by the Legislative Assembly, heads the executive branch in AJK. AJK also has its own President, who acts as the ceremonial head of state. The region possesses an independent judiciary that operates within the framework established by the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974. AJK’s judicial system includes its own high court, which oversees cases within the region. Although AJK enjoys considerable autonomy, it maintains strong connections with Pakistan, especially regarding defense, foreign affairs, and constitutional issues. The Constitution of AJK and the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act of 1974 outline the nature of the region’s relationship with Pakistan, wherein Pakistan maintains control over key national issues, while AJK enjoys considerable autonomy in its domestic governance.
In contrast, the constitutional status of IIOJK was distinct within the Indian Union for many years. Prior to the revocation of Article 370 in August 2019, the region was governed by a unique set of provisions that granted it a special status compared to other states in India. These provisions were primarily embodied in Article 370 and Article 35A, which were designed to reflect the unique political and historical context of the region. Article 370 was the foundation of Jammu and Kashmir’s special status under the Indian Constitution. It was a temporary provision that played a crucial role in shaping the state’s relationship with the Indian Union. Adopted as part of the Instrument of Accession in 1947, it was signed by Maharaja Hari Singh, the ruler of Jammu and Kashmir, when the state acceded to India after partition. Article 370 acknowledged the exceptional circumstances of IIOJK and allowed the state to retain autonomy in many areas, except for defense, foreign affairs, finance, and communications, which remained under Indian government jurisdiction.
On August 5, 2019, the Indian government abrogated Article 370 through a Presidential Order, effectively revoking Jammu and Kashmir’s special status. This move resulted in the reorganization of the state into two Union Territories: Jammu and Kashmir, and Ladakh. The revocation marked a significant shift in the legal and political framework of Jammu and Kashmir, fully integrating it into India’s political and legal system and eliminating the special provisions that had allowed the region to function under a distinct set of laws. The abrogation of Article 370 also led to the annulment of Article 35A, removing the special rights and privileges of permanent residents in IIOJK. Non-residents were now allowed to purchase property in the region and access government services that had been previously restricted.
This change fundamentally altered the region’s autonomy, making it subject to the full jurisdiction of Indian laws and regulations, akin to other states and Union Territories in India. The revocation sparked significant political turmoil in the region, with local leaders and political parties in IIOJK condemning the move as an attack on the region’s autonomy and identity. It also resulted in mass protests, public unrest, and heightened tensions, leading India’s security forces to deploy large numbers of military personnel to suppress dissent and maintain control. The actions taken by the Indian government following the revocation have been widely criticized by international human rights organizations, who argue that these measures have exacerbated the human rights situation in the region. One of the first steps taken by the Indian government after the revocation was the mass arrest of political leaders, activists, and civilians in Jammu and Kashmir. Prominent political figures, such as former chief ministers Mehbooba Mufti and Omar Abdullah, were detained under preventive custody, along with hundreds of local leaders and political party members. These arrests were not only arbitrary but also violated due process, with detainees frequently not being informed of the charges against them. Along with political leaders, many youths and activists were also detained under harsh laws such as the Public Safety Act (PSA) and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), which permit detention without trial for prolonged periods. The indefinite detention of political leaders and ordinary citizens has sparked widespread condemnation, with reports indicating that many detainees were held in solitary confinement, often in remote jails outside the region, making it difficult for families and legal representatives to reach them. Following the abrogation of Article 370, the Indian government imposed one of the most severe communication blackouts in history across IIOJK. For months, the region endured complete or partial internet shutdowns, leaving millions without access to the internet, social media, and other communication platforms. This measure was intended to prevent the spread of information, limit protests, and reduce the international community’s awareness of the situation on the ground. The blackout severely disrupted daily life, education, and the economy, as businesses, students, and government services were rendered nearly paralyzed. Additionally, it obstructed the flow of information on human rights violations, making it difficult for journalists and human rights organizations to report on abuses. The complete communications blockade raised serious concerns about the suppression of free speech and media. Several journalists faced detentions, threats, and attacks for attempting to report on the situation. Human rights organizations, such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, condemned the restrictions, calling them a direct violation of the fundamental right to freedom of expression.
In reality, India never fully granted IIOJK true special status, treating it as less than a province. having a Chief Minister and Governor, similar to other parts of India reflects India’s reluctance to genuinely offer special status to IIOJK. For the Kashmiri people of IIOJK, living, working, and speaking freely within India is virtually impossible. In contrast, AJK enjoys a unique special status, where its citizens can live, work, and express themselves freely across Pakistan. This serves as a clear distinction for those who view both India and Pakistan through the same lens.
Pakistan remains committed to the Kashmir cause, supporting the UN resolutions on the right to self-determination for Kashmiris, while India has already incorporated IIOJK into its territory. The crucial point now is to recognize this shift, especially for those advocating for alternatives not outlined in UN resolutions. India has made its position clear by fully merging IIOJK, making it an integral part of India. Consequently, India may argue that any discussions of plebiscite and other options should now only concern AJK, as IIOJK has already been absorbed. The global focus must now be on the need for a plebiscite, with the international community should urge India to adhere to UN resolutions and grant Kashmiris their right to self-determination.
Comments are closed, but trackbacks and pingbacks are open.