Each time Islamabad attempts to internationalise the Kashmir dispute, an inconvenient question follows: if Pakistan claims to be the champion of Kashmiris, why has it failed to provide political rights, economic equality, or meaningful self-governance to the people living in the portions of Jammu and Kashmir under its own control?

The latest iteration came when Pakistan Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif raised the Kashmir issue at the United Nations General Assembly on 26 September 2026, reprising a familiar diplomatic script — while critics argue he offered no account of Islamabad's own record in the region it has administered for over seven decades.

Historical roots of the dispute

The origins of Pakistan's control over roughly one-third of the former princely state trace back to October 1947, when tribal militias from what was then the North-West Frontier, reportedly backed by Islamabad, invaded Jammu and Kashmir. The invasion was marked by widespread violence and looting.

Faced with this assault, Maharaja Hari Singh signed the Instrument of Accession to India, prompting New Delhi to airlift troops into Srinagar. The first India-Pakistan war followed, ending in a ceasefire that left Pakistan in control of approximately one-third of the former princely state — territories Islamabad calls 'Azad Jammu and Kashmir', but which India officially designates as Pakistan-occupied Jammu and Kashmir (PoJK).

The governance contradiction in PoJK

Despite the 'free' label Islamabad attaches to these territories, residents have for decades complained of limited political representation and restricted access to benefits from local natural resources. The region's governance structure reportedly places effective authority in the hands of Islamabad and the Pakistani army, rather than elected local bodies.

Political groups advocating genuine independence for PoJK have frequently faced suppression, according to reports from the region. Infrastructure deficits, employment challenges, inadequate healthcare facilities, and administrative indifference continue to marginalise residents, even as hydropower resources and other natural assets are reportedly extracted with proceeds flowing to Islamabad.

Assembly structure and Islamabad's grip

The PoJK Legislative Assembly currently has 53 members — 41 directly elected from territorial constituencies within PoJK and 12 on reserved seats. Notably, some constituencies are spread across Pakistani cities such as Lahore, Rawalpindi, and Karachi, a structural arrangement that critics say allows Islamabad to influence the Assembly's composition by mobilising votes outside the territory itself.

The reserved seats, in particular, have been at the centre of ongoing protests, with many residents viewing them as instruments through which Islamabad maintains political dominance over the region.

Adding to the optics, Najeeb Naqi of the ruling Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) was elected as the 'President' of PoJK on Thursday, further reinforcing Islamabad's hold over the territory's highest office.

What Sharif's UN speech leaves unanswered

Successive Pakistani governments have invested considerable diplomatic energy in raising the status of territories administered by India, while drawing far less international scrutiny for their own stewardship of PoJK. Sharif's address at the UN General Assembly may serve a domestic political audience in Pakistan, but analysts argue it sidesteps fundamental questions about self-determination and development in territories Islamabad has controlled for generations.

The core issue, critics contend, is not merely what Pakistan says about Kashmir — it is what Pakistan has done, or failed to do, in the parts it has long administered. Whether the international community presses Islamabad on this contradiction will be closely watched in the weeks ahead.