The region commonly referred to as Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir (PoK) has been a focal point of conflict and contention between India and Pakistan for over seven decades. Understanding its history is essential to grasp the complexity of the broader Kashmir issue. From the turbulent days of Partition to the present-day geopolitical implications, PoK’s story is one of political maneuvering, military aggression, and contested sovereignty.

The Accession of Jammu & Kashmir to India

In 1947, as British India was partitioned into two nations—India and Pakistan—the princely states were given the choice to accede to either dominion or remain independent. Maharaja Hari Singh, the ruler of the princely state of Jammu & Kashmir, initially chose to remain neutral. However, in October 1947, tribal militias backed by Pakistan invaded the region. Faced with an existential threat, the Maharaja signed the Instrument of Accession on October 26, 1947, thereby legally acceding to India.

Following this, Indian troops were airlifted to the region to repel the invaders. The first Indo-Pak war ensued, lasting until 1948.

UN Involvement and the Ceasefire Line

In January 1948, India approached the United Nations Security Council to resolve the conflict. The UNSC called for a ceasefire and proposed a plebiscite to determine the will of the people—conditional upon Pakistan withdrawing all its forces, something that never occurred. On January 1, 1949, a ceasefire line was established, dividing the state into areas administered by Pakistan and India.

The region occupied by Pakistan through military means came to be known in India as Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir (PoK), which includes Azad Jammu & Kashmir (AJK) and Gilgit-Baltistan. The term “Azad” (meaning “free”) is controversial, as the region is neither independent nor fully autonomous.

Democratic Deficit and Political Control

Unlike the Indian-administered Jammu & Kashmir—which had its own Constitution and Assembly for decades—PoK has consistently been under the political control of Islamabad. The Azad Jammu and Kashmir Council, chaired by the Prime Minister of Pakistan, wields significant power, reducing the autonomy of local institutions.

In Gilgit-Baltistan, the situation is even more stark. The region has historically been denied constitutional status or political representation in Pakistan’s Parliament. This raises concerns about democratic rights and self-governance for the people living there.

Strategic Importance and the CPEC Factor

The China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), a key component of China’s Belt and Road Initiative, runs through Gilgit-Baltistan. India has objected strongly to this, as the infrastructure projects involve land that legally belongs to India. The move has added a new geopolitical layer to the dispute, bringing China more directly into the conversation.

Human Rights Concerns

Reports from various human rights organizations have flagged issues in PoK, ranging from suppression of free speech to enforced disappearances. The lack of an independent judiciary and limitations on press freedom have been points of international concern. Meanwhile, political dissent and calls for greater autonomy or independence are often met with harsh crackdowns.

India's Stand and the Way Forward

India maintains that the entire region of Jammu & Kashmir, including PoK, is an integral part of the country as per the legal Instrument of Accession. This position has been reiterated in Indian parliamentary resolutions, Supreme Court rulings, and foreign policy statements. The 1994 Indian Parliament resolution unequivocally declared that “PoK is an integral part of India and Pakistan must vacate the area.”

While India continues to push for diplomatic and legal recognition of its claim, the region remains one of the most militarized and politically sensitive areas in the world.

The history of Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir is one of contested legitimacy and unresolved grievances. What began as a post-Partition crisis has evolved into a long-standing geopolitical impasse. While Pakistan claims to champion the rights of Kashmiris, its governance of PoK has been marred by democratic deficits and allegations of repression. India’s stance, backed by historical treaties and legal instruments, calls for the return of this territory to ensure the sovereignty and integrity of the nation.

The road to resolution lies not in military aggression or proxy conflicts but in transparency, democratic processes, and respect for international obligations.