Shabir Ahmad
Pakistan-Occupied Jammu and Kashmir (POJK)— a territory, often romanticized for its breathtaking landscapes and resilient people, has long been a flashpoint in the Indo-Pakistani rivalry.
Yet, amid the geopolitical tug-of-war, a growing chorus from within POJK calls for greater autonomy, not as a mere administrative reform, but as a bold step toward sustainable peace in South Asia. Granting meaningful self-governance to POJK could de-escalate tensions, empower local communities, and pave the way for dialogue that has eluded the region since 1947.
The roots of the Kashmir conflict trace back to the partition of British India, when the princely state of Jammu and Kashmir acceded to India amid tribal invasions backed by Pakistan. This led to the first Indo-Pak war and the subsequent division along the Line of Control (LoC), with Pakistan administering roughly one-third of the territory.
POJK, has since been governed under a facade of autonomy: AJK operates with its own assembly and prime minister, while GB was granted provincial status in 2020. However, real power remains vested in Islamabad, with the Pakistani military and federal bureaucracy pulling the strings on defense, foreign affairs, and even local elections.
Recent years have seen mounting discontent in POJK. Protests in Muzaffarabad and Gilgit have highlighted grievances over resource exploitation, political marginalization, and economic neglect. The region’s vast hydropower potential, for instance, generates electricity primarily for Pakistan’s Punjab heartland, leaving locals grappling with power shortages and unemployment. Human rights reports document arbitrary detentions and suppression of dissent, fueling a quest for genuine self-rule. As one activist from Gilgit put it in a 2024 interview, “We are neither fully Pakistani nor free; autonomy is our right, not a concession.”
Advocating for autonomy in POJK is not about secession or redrawing borders—it’s about fostering stability through decentralization. By granting POJK full legislative powers over internal matters, including education, healthcare, and natural resources, Pakistan could address local aspirations and reduce the allure of militant groups that exploit disenfranchisement. Historical precedents abound: Scotland’s devolution within the UK has quelled separatist sentiments, while Aceh’s autonomy in Indonesia ended decades of insurgency. In POJK, similar reforms could transform the region from a conflict zone into a model of self-determination.
The path to peace begins with economic empowerment. POJK’s strategic location along the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) offers immense potential, yet locals decry it as a “colonial project” that bypasses them. Autonomy would allow POJK to negotiate fair shares in mega-projects, invest in tourism, and develop sustainable industries. Imagine thriving eco-resorts in the Neelum Valley or tech hubs in Skardu—opportunities that could lift millions out of poverty and integrate the region into global trade networks. This prosperity would undermine the narratives of victimhood that perpetuate cross-LoC violence.
Moreover, autonomy could catalyze broader regional dialogue. India, which views POJK as integral to its territory, has long insisted on UN resolutions for a plebiscite—a process stalled by mutual distrust. If Pakistan demonstrates goodwill by enhancing POJK’s self-governance, it could build confidence for talks on demilitarization and people-to-people exchanges. Think tanks like the Institute for Peace and Conflict Studies in New Delhi have argued that decentralized governance in disputed areas could serve as a “soft border” solution, allowing cultural and economic ties without sovereignty concessions. In an era of climate change, where Himalayan glaciers feed rivers vital to both nations, cooperative autonomy in POJK could prevent water wars and promote joint environmental stewardship.
Critics may argue that autonomy risks emboldening separatists or weakening Pakistan’s federal structure. However, evidence suggests otherwise. In AJK, the 13th Amendment to its interim constitution in 2018 briefly devolved more powers, only to be rolled back amid federal pushback—yet during that period, public satisfaction reportedly rose. Gilgit-Baltistan’s 2020 reforms, while incomplete, have sparked local elections and infrastructure investments, hinting at the dividends of even partial autonomy. To mitigate risks, Pakistan could implement safeguards like reserved federal oversight on security, ensuring autonomy strengthens rather than fragments the state.
The international community has a role to play. The United Nations, which has maintained observers along the LoC since 1949, should advocate for human rights audits in POJK and support capacity-building for autonomous institutions. Powers like China, with stakes in CPEC, could encourage Islamabad to prioritize local inclusion, while the U.S. and EU might tie aid to democratic reforms. As global attention shifts to Indo-Pacific rivalries, resolving Kashmir’s periphery through autonomy could prevent escalation into a nuclear flashpoint.
In conclusion, the quest for autonomy in POJK is not a zero-sum game but a visionary stride toward peace. By heeding the voices of its people—voices like those of the All Parties Hurriyat Conference or the Gilgit-Baltistan United Movement—Pakistan can turn a liability into an asset. A self-governing POJK would foster internal harmony, deter external meddling, and open doors to reconciliation with India. As the sun sets over the Karakoram peaks, let us envision a future where autonomy illuminates the path to lasting regional peace, healing wounds that have bled for far too long. The time for bold action is now; the Himalayas await their dawn.
