For more than seven decades, the political status, governance and treatment of communities in Pakistan-administered parts of Jammu and Kashmir have remained contested. The territories Islamabad calls Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK) and Gilgit-Baltistan have faced persistent criticism over restrictions on political activity, limited representation, resource governance and allegations of human rights abuses.
The concerns extend across two distinct administrative systems. In AJK, the interim constitution adopted in 1974 restricts political activity deemed contrary to the territory’s accession to Pakistan. Article 8 bars individuals and political parties from propagating against that position, a provision that, according to the material reviewed, prevents advocates of independence or alternative political arrangements from contesting elections or holding public office. Human Rights Watch has previously documented concerns that such restrictions limit political participation by supporters of Kashmiri independence.
The constitutional framework has also left Islamabad with extensive influence over AJK’s political and administrative affairs. The source material says the federal government, including the Ministry of Kashmir Affairs and security institutions, retains significant authority over major policy and security matters, while legislation passed by the AJK Assembly requires federal approval.
Gilgit-Baltistan faces a different set of institutional constraints. The region does not have representation in Pakistan’s national parliament or full provincial status. Although a Legislative Assembly was introduced in 2009 and its governance framework was amended in 2018, the material says federal institutions continue to exercise substantial authority over security, courts and major policy decisions. Political activity advocating an alternative to accession to Pakistan is similarly restricted.
Human rights allegations form another major part of the dispute. The source material cites claims presented at a United Nations Human Rights Council event in October 2025 alleging more than 32,000 enforced disappearances across Pakistan-administered territories and referring to 44 alleged internment centres. It also alleges that activists in AJK and Gilgit-Baltistan have faced terrorism and espionage charges, imprisonment and exile. These figures and allegations are presented in the source as evidence submitted by activists rather than as independently established findings.
Journalists and rights defenders have also been described as facing censorship, threats and imprisonment. According to the material, restrictions on media and the use of anti-terrorism and sedition laws have limited the ability of critics to document or publicise alleged abuses.
Economic grievances have added another layer to the political dispute. In April 2025, protests were reported in Gilgit-Baltistan’s Shigar district over proposed changes to mining regulations. Local activists alleged that the proposed Mines and Minerals Bill could facilitate greater state and commercial control over deposits including gold, copper, gemstones and rare-earth minerals without adequate local consent.
The China-Pakistan Economic Corridor has further intensified concerns over land and resource governance in Gilgit-Baltistan. The source material says Pakistani authorities and private entities have faced accusations of acquiring land for infrastructure projects without adequate compensation, while also citing claims of demographic changes linked to settlement policies.
Public discontent has also centred on basic services and political representation. The Joint Awami Action Committee, which emerged in AJK in 2023 around demands including lower electricity prices and greater representation, developed into a broader protest movement by 2026. The material describes a government response involving internet restrictions, arrests and the deployment of additional security personnel. It also cites claims that more than 45 people were killed and more than 200 injured during the crackdown by June 2026.
The source contrasts these developments with infrastructure and public-service investment in Indian-administered Jammu and Kashmir since 2019, citing projects involving roads, tunnels, electricity, healthcare, education and telecommunications. That comparison is central to the material’s argument about differing approaches to governance and development, although the underlying political claims remain part of the broader India-Pakistan dispute.
The central issue raised by the material is therefore not limited to the territorial dispute between India and Pakistan. It is also the question of political participation, local control over resources and the ability of residents of AJK and Gilgit-Baltistan to articulate competing views about their political future.
The source calls for greater autonomy, protection of political freedoms, safeguards for land rights and independent investigation of alleged human rights violations. It also cites recommendations attributed to Genocide Watch for stronger local governance and restrictions on the use of anti-terrorism and sedition laws against dissenters.
After decades of competing claims over Kashmir, the governance of Pakistan-administered territories remains an unresolved part of the wider dispute. The continuing protests, constitutional restrictions and allegations over political rights and resource control ensure that questions about representation and self-determination remain central to the debate over the future of AJK and Gilgit-Baltistan.
