Mohammad Umar Bhat
The erstwhile princely state of Jammu and Kashmir was once a unified region of majestic mountains, rivers, and vibrant cultures, comprising three main parts: Indian Illegally Occupied Jammu and Kashmir (IIOJK), Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK), and Gilgit-Baltistan. Over the decades, these regions have witnessed contrasting political, economic, and social realities. While AJK and Gilgit-Baltistan function under democratic systems where public representatives hold authority and governance is relatively transparent, IIOJK continues to suffer under the weight of occupation, human rights abuses, and a deep democratic deficit. In AJK, democracy has matured to the extent that women and minorities have been given representation in the legislative assembly, a step that strengthens the inclusiveness of governance. In contrast, IIOJK remains marred by rigged elections and prolonged periods of governor’s rule, where even elected governments are frequently dissolved by New Delhi to impose direct control. The absence of real democracy in IIOJK reflects not just administrative failure but a deliberate strategy to suppress the political voice of Kashmiris.
In recent times, both AJK and IIOJK have witnessed waves of protest, yet their nature and outcomes reveal two entirely different systems of governance. In AJK, the elected government led by Prime Minister Chaudhry Anwar ul Haq faced widespread demonstrations spearheaded by the Joint Awami Action Committee (JAAC). These protests centered on basic civic and developmental demands such as road construction, airport facilities, and the abolition of an outdated quota system that many saw as discriminatory. The people’s movement in AJK reflected the strength of civil society and the citizens’ faith in peaceful democratic struggle. Meanwhile, across the Line of Control, in the cold desert of Ladakh, protests erupted under the leadership of the Leh Apex Body headed by renowned scientist and environmentalist Sonam Wangchuk. However, unlike in AJK, the demands in Ladakh were not about roads or basic infrastructure—they were political and existential. The people of Ladakh were demanding the restoration of statehood and constitutional protections that were stripped away when India revoked the special status of Jammu and Kashmir on August 5, 2019. The abrogation not only dissolved their limited autonomy but also left Ladakh vulnerable to exploitation and demographic change, fueling widespread resentment among locals.
The difference in how these protests were handled further exposes the stark contrast between the democratic norms of Pakistan-administered regions and the repressive policies of India in its occupied territories. In AJK, the government of Pakistan acted with political maturity, forming a high-level committee for dialogue with the protest leaders. These discussions helped defuse tensions and eventually restored peace. Although some unfortunate incidents of violence occurred, leading to casualties among civilians and security personnel, they were largely attributed to extremist elements who tried to hijack the peaceful movement for their own political agenda. The government’s willingness to negotiate, however, reaffirmed Pakistan’s commitment to listening to the people of AJK and resolving conflicts through consensus. On the other hand, the protests in Ladakh met with a brutal military response. Indian security forces cracked down heavily, killing at least five civilians and arresting dozens of protestors, including Sonam Wangchuk. Many of them were booked under the draconian National Security Act (NSA), a law often used to silence dissent. The use of such harsh measures reflects the absence of democratic space in IIOJK, where any form of public expression is treated as rebellion rather than a legitimate right.
The suppression of dissent in IIOJK is not new; it is rooted in decades of systematic militarization and state-sponsored violence. Over the years, the Indian army has been accused of grave human rights violations, including the use of sexual violence as a weapon of war. The horrific incidents of Kunan Poshpora and the Shopian gangrape remain painful examples of this brutality. These crimes not only expose the impunity enjoyed by Indian security personnel but also highlight the trauma inflicted upon Kashmiri women who continue to seek justice. In contrast, the armed forces in AJK operate under strict civilian and legal oversight. There has never been a single recorded instance of misconduct or abuse of local women by Pakistani soldiers. This distinction alone reflects the moral and ethical difference in how the two sides treat the people of Jammu and Kashmir.
The human cost of India’s occupation is most tragically illustrated by the use of pellet guns by Indian forces against Kashmiri protesters. These weapons, banned across the world, have blinded over 20,000 young men and women in IIOJK. The so-called “non-lethal” crowd control measures have turned peaceful demonstrations into scenes of horror, leaving an entire generation physically and emotionally scarred. In AJK, however, people enjoy the protection of law and democratic rights. Disagreements are resolved through dialogue and political representation rather than bullets and pellets. The difference between the two regions is the difference between freedom and fear, between democracy and dictatorship.
The economic realities of AJK and IIOJK further highlight the consequences of occupation versus self-governance. Inflation in IIOJK has reached alarming levels, driving ordinary citizens into despair. Petrol prices in the region hover around 100 Indian Rupees per litre, equivalent to nearly 340 Pakistani Rupees, while in AJK the same quantity costs about 268 Pakistani Rupees. This disparity is not limited to fuel; food items, cooking gas, and essential commodities have also witnessed sharp increases in IIOJK. The result is a population struggling to meet basic needs, with household budgets shrinking under relentless inflation. In contrast, AJK maintains a relatively stable economic structure despite limited resources, largely due to better governance and a more accountable administrative framework. The people have access to basic services at affordable rates, and the cost of living remains comparatively lower.
The irony is even more glaring in the energy sector. IIOJK is one of India’s biggest electricity-producing regions, generating power that lights up eleven northern Indian states. Yet, its own people live in darkness, suffering from 12-hour daily power cuts, and during harsh winters, electricity remains unavailable for weeks. Meanwhile, in AJK, electricity is abundant, affordable, and almost free. The contrast symbolizes two different philosophies of governance: in AJK, resources are used for the welfare of the people, while in IIOJK, resources are exploited for the benefit of others. This exploitation extends to the rivers, forests, and minerals of the region, which are plundered without regard for the local population’s needs or ecological balance.
The differences between AJK and IIOJK are not merely political; they are deeply human. In AJK, people live with dignity and freedom, enjoying access to democratic institutions, an independent judiciary, and fundamental human rights. In IIOJK, people live under surveillance, militarization, and fear. The everyday life of a Kashmiri in the occupied territory is a constant struggle against curfews, arbitrary arrests, and censorship. The abrogation of Article 370 and 35A has further stripped Kashmiris of their identity and land rights, paving the way for settler colonialism under the guise of development. The demographic engineering being pursued by India aims to turn the Muslim majority into a minority in their own homeland, a policy widely condemned by human rights organizations.
In AJK, on the other hand, political debate is encouraged, and protests are seen as part of the democratic process. When the Joint Awami Action Committee mobilized thousands for their demands, it was met with dialogue, not bullets. The government understood that governance means listening, not silencing. This culture of political engagement keeps the democratic spirit alive and strengthens the bond between the people and the state. Pakistan’s approach toward AJK, remains rooted in respect for public opinion and the right to peaceful protest. India’s approach toward IIOJK, however, remains anchored in control, coercion, and fear.
The current situations in both regions tell a story that goes beyond borders; it is a story about freedom versus occupation, justice versus oppression, and humanity versus militarization. The people of IIOJK continue to endure the consequences of an imposed system that denies them their voice and identity, while the people of AJK move forward with hope and participation. The world must recognize this contrast and stand on the right side of history. The ongoing protests in both territories are not just local uprisings but reflections of two distinct realities born from the same land—one governed by consent, the other by coercion.
The people of Jammu and Kashmir, regardless of which side of the border they live on, share the same heritage, culture, and longing for peace. But the difference lies in how their aspirations are treated. In AJK, the government acknowledges those aspirations, while in IIOJK, they are crushed under boots and barbed wire. As long as India continues to silence voices through force, the resistance in IIOJK will persist. And as long as Pakistan continues to uphold the democratic spirit in AJK, it will remain a symbol of what true freedom and governance can look like in the heart of the Himalayas.
About the Author:
Mohammad Umar Bhat is a Kashmiri scholar and commentator and writes from the perspective of a people directly affected by India’s aggressive policies in the region. His areas of interest include hydro-dynamics, climate change, underground structures, tunnels and mines, alongside political conflicts and insurgencies.
