“We Are Not Pakistani Citizens”: Former AJK Chief Justice Exposes Kashmir’s Political Paradox

MUZAFFARABAD, Azad Jammu and Kashmir – In a revealing interview, Syed Manzoor Hussain Gilani, the former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK), has laid bare the profound and unique constitutional ambiguities that define the region’s relationship with Pakistan, describing it as a system without parallel anywhere in the world.

Speaking to a local channel, the former top judge dissected the legal and political framework of Pakistan-administered Kashmir, presenting a picture of a territory that is governed as a de facto province but is constitutionally not a part of Pakistan, leaving its inhabitants in a state of political limbo.

The core of the paradox, as explained by Justice Gilani, stems from two official notifications issued by the Government of Pakistan in 1972 and 1988. These documents explicitly state that Azad Kashmir is not considered part of Pakistan’s territory under the country’s constitution.

“Yet,” Gilani notes, “the system is run as much as possible like a province.” This creates a contradictory reality where the federal government in Islamabad wields all the powers it holds over other provinces—and even more—over Azad Kashmir, but without granting the region the corresponding status or representation.

“This is an antagonistic situation,” Gilani stated. “It’s governed like a province, treated as a federating unit, but it’s not actually a federating unit… There’s no territory in the world like Azad Kashmir. This kind of system doesn’t exist anywhere else.”

The Illusion of Autonomy and the Reality of Control

The AJK has its own constitution, a president, a prime minister, and a legislative assembly. However, Gilani argues this autonomy is largely superficial. Key levers of power remain firmly with Islamabad.

• Judicial and Bureaucratic Control: The appointment of high-level judges and senior bureaucrats is made by the federal government. Many officials are sent on deputation from Pakistan, meaning the administrative machinery is not answerable solely to the local population but to the central authority.

• No Representation at the Center: This is what Gilani identifies as the region’s “biggest loss.” While Pakistan’s provinces elect representatives to the National Assembly and Senate, giving them a voice in federal legislation and a platform to advocate for provincial interests (like water rights), Azad Kashmir has no such representation.

• The Military and Legal Framework: Laws governing critical areas like defense are made by the Pakistani parliament, where AJK has no say. “We have no say in that. That’s our biggest issue,” Gilani emphasized.

The Citizenship Conundrum

Perhaps the most striking revelation for many will be the clarification on citizenship. Justice Gilani explicitly stated that the native people of Azad Kashmir are not citizens of Pakistan.

“You might be surprised to hear this,” he said. “The people living in Azad Kashmir aren’t actually citizens of Pakistan.”

He drew a critical distinction: those who migrated from Indian-administered Jammu and Kashmir to various parts of Pakistan are granted Pakistani citizenship and voting rights. However, those born and living within AJK itself hold a different status. They vote for the AJK Assembly but not for Pakistan’s national or provincial legislatures.

Their Pakistani-issued National Identity Cards and passports, Gilani clarified, are documents of identity, not proof of nationality. “It’s about identity. That’s your identity, not your nationality,” he explained, comparing it to passports issued to Afghan or Rohingya refugees.

A Proposed Solution: Provisional Integration

Addressing the common argument that integration is impossible due to the region’s disputed international status, the former Chief Justice offered a pragmatic solution.

He pointed to India’s handling of Jammu and Kashmir prior to 2019, where the former state had its own constitution but was integrated into India’s federal framework with representation in the national parliament.

“The simple solution is that the existing constitution of Azad Kashmir should be kept with suitable amendments,” he proposed. By adopting relevant provisions from Pakistan’s constitution concerning provinces, AJK could be granted provisional representation in the Pakistani parliament and a seat on critical federal bodies like the Council of Common Interests (CCI).

This, he argued, would not prejudice the final status of Kashmir, which remains subject to a UN-mandated plebiscite. “Rights don’t get disputed—they’re either disputed or undisputed… Until the Kashmir issue is resolved, we should be given those rights and that status.”

He contrasted this with India’s approach, where the people of Jammu and Kashmir were brought “at par with the rest of the Indian nation” in terms of rights, while the territory itself remained disputed. “We are not at par with the rest of the Pakistani nation… We are Pakistanis. None of us consider India as an option. But we are not accepted as independent either.”

A Call for Political Will

Justice Gilani expressed frustration at the lack of political initiative from local leaders to address this constitutional ambiguity, suggesting they are complicit in maintaining a status quo that benefits Islamabad’s control.

“Pakistan favors whoever benefits them the most… But they just sit quietly and don’t take any action,” he remarked.

His interview serves as a powerful legal critique, highlighting that beyond the rhetoric of solidarity lies a complex and unresolved constitutional relationship that denies the people of Azad Kashmir the full rights of participation and leaves the region’s administration in a unique, and arguably disadvantaged, position on the world stage.