Former AJK prime minister stresses the historical significance of the region's political identity, calls for dialogue over force in addressing public grievances, and comments on Pakistan's evolving Kashmir stance.
ISLAMABAD — Senior Kashmiri politician and former Azad Kashmir prime minister Sardar Attique Ahmed Khan has underscored the importance of preserving the region's historical political identity, warning against unilateral changes to its constitutional and administrative framework.
Speaking with journalists in Islamabad, Attique addressed a broad range of issues, including the constitutional status of Pakistan-administered Kashmir, the evolving Kashmir policy of Islamabad, the recent public rights movement, refugee representation, and the enduring Kashmir dispute.
Discussions surrounding potential changes to Azad Kashmir’s administrative status are not new and have surfaced periodically since the 1950s, Attique noted. He pointed out that debate over altering the region’s status gained renewed attention following New Delhi's August 2019 actions in Indian-administered Jammu and Kashmir, recalling past proposals to alter the region's governance structure.
Addressing foreign policy and security dynamics, Attique described recent statements from Pakistani military leadership regarding Kashmir as a positive development. Reaffirming adherence to United Nations resolutions, the right to self-determination, and Islamabad's foundational positions, he suggested these statements reflect a return to core principles, while emphasizing that consistency at all levels of implementation remains essential. He also noted China's distinct perspective on the region, observing that Beijing recognizes the area as a disputed territory rather than accepting unilateral administrative integration by India.
Attique placed strong emphasis on the official nomenclature of the region, noting that its proper designation is the "Azad Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir." Reducing this title, he cautioned, risks overlooking foundational historical realities. The political and legal framework governing the region is the product of a prolonged historical process—including the Karachi Agreement of 1949 and the Azad Kashmir Electoral Act of 1970—and core constitutional arrangements cannot be altered solely through narrow political consensus among political parties.
Turning to the recent public unrest led by the Joint Awami Action Committee, Attique rejected attempts to characterize the movement as the product of a single party or organization. The protests, he noted, have drawn participation from a diverse cross-section of society, including trade unions, legal professionals, students, medical practitioners, pensioners, women, and various political and nationalist factions. While stating that the All Jammu and Kashmir Muslim Conference is not formally part of the action committee, he cautioned against labeling the entire movement as anti-state, urging a distinction between legitimate socioeconomic grievances and fringe rhetoric.
The public mobilization initially stemmed from specific grievances regarding electricity tariffs and utility costs, Attique noted. He argued that the failure to honor earlier commitments regarding utility pricing deepened public frustration. He maintained that authorities in Islamabad and Muzaffarabad should prioritize political dialogue, negotiation, and engagement over heavy-handed measures to resolve public disputes.
On electoral matters, Attique advocated for timely elections in the region, warning that any undue delay in the democratic process would undermine the institutional stability of Azad Kashmir. He also defended the representation and voting rights of refugees from Jammu and Kashmir.
Reflecting on the historical trajectory of the All Jammu and Kashmir Muslim Conference, Attique recalled the foundational role envisioned by Quaid-e-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah, who recognized the distinct political conditions of the region during the pre-partition era. He concluded that the Kashmir dispute remains an international, constitutional, and political question grounded in history, asserting that any future administrative or political arrangements must not compromise the disputed nature of the region or the collective aspirations of its people.