Why Pakistan Calls AJK a “Foreign Territory”
Former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Azad Jammu & Kashmir, Justice Syed Manzoor Hussain Gillani, has described Pakistan’s classification of AJK as a “foreign territory” as legally flawed, politically dangerous, and constitutionally unsustainable.
In an in-depth interview, Justice Gillani explained that Azad Kashmir is termed “foreign territory” solely because it is excluded from the definition of Pakistan’s territories under Article 1 of the Constitution. However, he emphasized that this technical exclusion contradicts ground realities.
“Foreign territory normally means an area outside a state’s control,” Justice Gillani said. “But Pakistan controls defense, foreign affairs, communication, and more than fifty administrative subjects in Azad Kashmir. Calling such a territory ‘foreign’ defies legal logic.”
He revealed that this argument has been repeatedly used in Pakistani courts to avoid accountability. In one case before the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the Attorney General formally stated that AJK was a foreign territory, thereby limiting judicial scrutiny of federal actions in the region.
Justice Gillani warned that this stance unintentionally strengthens India’s claim over Kashmir. “If Pakistan itself says Azad Kashmir is foreign territory, the obvious question arises: foreign to whom?” he asked.
Tracing the issue historically, he pointed to the Karachi Agreement of 1949, under which AJK voluntarily handed over defense, foreign affairs, and communication to Pakistan — the same subjects that formed the basis of Jammu and Kashmir’s accession to India. “Pakistan exercised control but failed to constitutionalize responsibility,” he noted.
He also clarified widespread misconceptions about the Standstill Agreement, stating that Jammu and Kashmir was never fully sovereign, as key state functions were already controlled first by Britain and then meant to transfer to Pakistan.
Justice Gillani argued that Pakistan deliberately maintained constitutional ambiguity to retain administrative freedom without political obligation. “This allows control without representation, authority without accountability,” he said.
Calling for reform, he proposed that Pakistan must either grant Azad Kashmir provisional constitutional inclusion or explicitly define its responsibilities under Pakistan’s Constitution until the Kashmir dispute is resolved, as envisioned in Article 257.
“This confusion is not accidental,” he concluded. “But it is damaging — to Azad Kashmir, to Pakistan, and to the Kashmir cause itself.”
