Interesting developments were witnessed in Pakistan administered Kashmir (PAK) since Farooq Haider succeeded to assume powers in spite of some reservations were expressed in Islamabad’s establishment on his election to PM, according to the media reports.  However, political development helped him to cling to the power. Farooq Haider happened to be the first PAK PM who unlike his predecessors expressed serious concerns about the role and practices of Pakistan in PAK, and asked Islamabad to revisit the unequal relationship exists between Islamabad and muzafarabad. He urged Islamabad to redefine the relationship in order to address the existing power imbalances and disparities that seriously undermined very identity of PAK, its empowerment, and enfranchisement essential for sustainable development of the region. His other suggestion also surprised many circles when asked Pakistan not to link ongoing dialogues with India with the resolution of Kashmir and advised Islamabad to resolve other issues first, and negotiate on Kashmir when time is right. He also advised Pakistan to reciprocate India by awarding MFN status which India had already inferred to Pakistan. many political circles call this major shifts in PAK administration which is unusual as every pro-Pakistan leadership always adopted extremely apologetic approach on the legitimate grievances of PAK except nationalist groups those have been critical not only Pakistan’s method of governance but Pakistan based militant groups’ involvement in Indian administered Kashmir. These pro-Pakistan politicians never uttered any word about the dignity, empowerment and enfranchisement of PAK which may be deemed derogation from Islamabad’s military approach. But Islamabad arrogant establishment instead of being receptive to the complaints and grievances of PAK nationalists always dismissed by calling it Indian sponsored propaganda. Albeit, Farooq Haider’s ascension to power and his some steps to improve his governance by removing a corrupt Chief Justice created controversy with Islamabad. Islamabad saw his action interference to Pakistan powers which prior to 1970s Islamabad used to exercise directly but in 1974 extra-constitutional acts was sheltered through the 1974 ACT.  The 1974 ACT has changed its entire spirit and intent from protecting PAK rights, interests and needs of people, says“no law against the Ideology of Pakistan-means Two-nation Theory- and State’s Accession to Pakistan would be allowed in PAK; as Pakistan Constitution that says that “no law against Quran and Sunnah will be permitted” but in PAK it is Pakistan ideology was declared Kashmiris' destination.
 When examining rationales of Farooq Haider’s contentions over questioning Islamabad’s overriding powers and practices in PAK which seriously undermined the capacity building, empowerment and participatory politics in PAK but essential for good governance. He also questioned the merit of 1974 ACT and suggested Islamabad to revisit and change its disenfranchising and non-participatory politics and culture by transferring powers and descion-making from Islamabad to Muzfarabad.  The rationales of his other proposals of improving relations with India and not to link ongoing relations with Kashmir solution can be judged in the context of belligerent culture was nurtured in the name of liberating Kashmir and use of proxy militant groups as policy tool unfolded into serious security challenges to entire region; but particularly caused serious human, economic, social and political losses and displacement of Kashmiris across the borders.  Both issues he raised in terms of PAK vs. Pakistan relationship; and Pakistan vs. Indian relationship, can be understood in the context of empowerment of peoples, their security and recognition that has to be ultimate objective of every political movement if it is people centric. In case of Kashmir its impact in terms of human losses and social and economic displacement in both parts suffered heavily. While in broader context Pakistan’s Kashmir policy rationales can be seen within Pakistan which is facing existential threat from within, not from India.
The issues and concerns Farooq Haider expressed over PAK political and economic empowerment, and relations between India and Pakistan were not raised by him first time in PAK or from Pakistan. Only difference is that the school of opinion he belongs to, and interest he represents and position he holds makes difference to which Islamabad circles need to understand that grievances raised by nationalists are acknowledged by pro-Pakistan leaders too. Every rational thinker would agree with his contents, and many enlightened Pakistani frequently wrote on Indo-Pak relations and suggested Islamabad military leaders to review its self-destructive Kashmir policy and restructure according to the human needs and political conditions of Pakistan. However, they also frequently wrote on Indian administered Kashmir (IAK) and tried to defend Islamabad’s position. But what has been missing in this entire discourse, is Pakistan administered Kashmir, which never drew attention of any credible Institution including PHRC, International human rights, think tanks, governments prior to Earthquake;  as if this territory never existed geographically, or governance had been extremely exemplary under Pakistan military rulers. But more sadly the apologetic attitude pro-Pakistan leadership adopted on the serious issues of rights and extra-constitutional control of Pakistan on every aspect of life.
Albeit, weak but only voice ever was raised about the rights and issues of PAK by nationalist parties. but they had their own issues, limitations, challenges and weaknesses that also helped Islamabad to get away with its serious issues of credibility and moral claims on Kashmir it has been making but it has miserably failed to respect the or fulfil those rights and obligations in its controlled parts. In spite the fact that Islamabad position, mandate, constitution on Kashmir all call it disputed territory and has limited mandate in these Areas; but its practices and control has not gone beyond its own Provinces; but relegated its status to a merely a local bodies. Farooq Haider had to concede this fact and had to say that Islamabad rules this Area through KC that controls all executive, judicial and financial powers and remaining administrative powers are held by Islamabad’s four bureaucrats and minster for Kashmir affairs.  The climate direct control has cultivated meant to discourage the local human potential to develop since no credible indigenous Institutions were allowed to develop including higher education, health and social services besides the participatory politics and ownership on resources.
However, longstanding but widely held views of nationalists in PAK were cited by some international NGOs like HRW, Crisis group, HRCP and European Union reports after their visits after the earthquake but also Farooq Haide. Farooq Haider also contested Pakistan’s claims of calling PAK a deficit oriented territory, which, according to Islamabad claims didn’t have enough resources and revenue, and runs on Pakistan’s grant, and said that he didn’t beg any grant but fair share of their resources used by Islamabad without any accountability and fiscal responsibility. But Pakistan’s practices of controlling every aspect of life indicates that deficiencies do not exist only in economic resources but its human resources, talent and capital are equally being questioned when all powers are seized by Islamabad. Because practices show that Islamabad believes that PAK politicians and officials are not capable of managing affairs and it had to create KC, KANA minister, Bureaucrats and finally intelligences agencies to meet their deficiencies. The Islamabad’s row of control has not only rendered PAK government as ineffectual but as non-entity in the affairs of PAK; but control resembling to the trusteeship which UN had created for underdeveloped territories, not capable to rule themselves and mandated other nations to rule them and develop their skill. After 63 years Pakistan’s trusteeship on PAK and Gilgit Baltistan is not changing rather getting stronger and stronger while indigenous governance and mandate is completely undermined. Farooq Haider’s assertions for political empowerment of the PAK and its demand for ownership on resources was not well-received in Islamabad which punitively slashed 45% of funding of his government reflects that Islamabad’s approach towards these controlled territories still lies in overpowering and subduing. The practices Muzfarabad is experiencing today, Srinagar had witnessed in 1953 and thereafter New Delhi tried to change the modus oprandi of governance; but Islamabad is still busy to maintain its strong control on every aspect of life.
The 1974 Interim Act that is the basis of Islamabad and Muzfarabad relationship, and roots cause of all problems had been authored by then Bhutto’s Law Minister Abdul Hafiz Piriada and imposed through its proxy newly created PPP party branch in PAK. The author of Interim Act devised legal subjugation of PAK and sheltered PAK extra-Constitutional and extra-sovereign practices through this 1974 ACT. It, on the one hand transferred all executive, judicial and financial powers to KC while introduced legal constraints against the political opponents that do not fall in line to the ideology of Pakistan and Accession with Pakistan. This practice of political exclusion officially exists today but hardly any international community or Pakistani enlightened people ever bothered to question this discriminatory policy including Pakistani politicians or media. This is the violation of Universal Declaration of human rights and it’s civil and political covenant which is Pakistan is party,  but also the mandate and claims Pakistan has or makes on Kashmir while undermines the fundamental approach for capacity building through participatory politics. PAK territory suffers seriously from health, education, physical infrastructure, gender inequality, political exclusion and ownership on its resources. PAK territory generates more than what is allocated to it by Islamabad but power imbalances and disparities have made the local governance completely ineffective and irrelevant to PAK affairs.