A land often celebrated as the most beautiful roof of the world has, on the side under Pakistani control, been reduced to a space of institutional neglect, democratic deprivation, and engineered underdevelopment. Pakistan does not administer Jammu and Kashmir—it holds it hostage: monopolising resources, denying political representation, criminalising dissent, and trapping millions in an existence behind the sun, exposed to daylight yet stripped of rights, protection, and future. As the poet Faiz Ahmed Faiz warned in Bol (“Speak”)—“Speak, for your lips are free; speak, for your tongue is still your own”—silence is never neutral. In Jammu and Kashmir, silence is imposed deliberately by a state that fears the voices of those it has excluded.

In Jammu and Kashmir, infrastructure development has translated into tangible improvements that directly affect security, governance, and daily life. Strategic projects such as the Chenab Railway Bridge, the Zojila and Z-Morh tunnels, and the Udhampur–Srinagar–Baramulla Rail Link (USBRL) have significantly enhanced access to remote and border areas, strengthening both civilian mobility and defence logistics. Following the abrogation of Article 370, the direct implementation of central government schemes—including PMGSY-IV rural road projects, Smart City initiatives in Jammu and Srinagar, and the expansion of 4G and 5G connectivity—has reduced long-standing institutional bottlenecks and improved access to water supply, healthcare, and administrative services. By contrast, Pakistan-occupied Jammu and Kashmir (PoJK) continues to face chronic deficiencies in transport infrastructure, low connectivity, and limited state capacity, reinforcing isolation and dependence on central authorities in Islamabad.

This institutional and infrastructural gap is mirrored in economic performance. In Jammu and Kashmir, the New Industrial Policy of 2021, the development of industrial estates in Kathua, Samba, and Budgam, and large-scale hydropower projects such as Ratle, Kishanganga, and Pakal Dul have strengthened energy security and attracted investment to a region historically characterised by a weak industrial base. Year-round tourism, supported by upgraded infrastructure in Gulmarg and Pahalgam and improved road and air connectivity, now contributes significantly to regional GDP. At the same time, the discovery of lithium in Reasi and proposed inland waterways along the Chenab and Jhelum rivers open new avenues for industrial diversification. In contrast, Pakistan-occupied Jammu and Kashmir remains trapped in a low-productivity economy, marked by limited investment, weak energy infrastructure, and the pervasive influence of non-state and military actors that discourage sustainable economic growth.

The social consequences of these divergent development paths are equally pronounced. In the area of child welfare, Jammu and Kashmir operates a coherent and legally entrenched framework, including free and compulsory education for children aged 6–14, specialised legal treatment for juveniles in conflict with the law, and strict criminalisation of child marriage and sexual abuse. The operation of specialised children’s courts and independent oversight bodies further strengthens institutional accountability. In Pakistan-occupied Jammu and Kashmir, however, the fragmented enforcement of comparable laws, deep regional disparities, and the influence of socio-religious structures continue to undermine effective child protection, particularly in education and safeguarding.

A similar pattern emerges in governance and social protection more broadly. Jammu and Kashmir’s use of Aadhaar-based digital identification for targeted welfare delivery, combined with the Right to Information framework, whistleblower protections, and the operation of local courts in rural areas, has enhanced transparency and public trust in institutions. A wide-ranging social welfare architecture provides safeguards for vulnerable groups, minorities, the elderly, and persons with disabilities. In the sphere of women’s rights, measures such as the prohibition of sex-selective practices, criminalisation of domestic violence, anti-dowry legislation, and the institutional role of independent commissions offer concrete mechanisms of protection. In Pakistan-occupied Jammu and Kashmir, by contrast, weak enforcement and limited institutional independence leave women and vulnerable communities disproportionately exposed.

Fiscal data further reinforce this contrast. The development budget for Pakistan-occupied Jammu and Kashmir for 2025–26 stands at approximately USD 1.77 billion, compared to USD 12.9 billion for Jammu and Kashmir. Per capita expenditure—USD 393 versus USD 1,032—reflects nearly three times greater investment in human development on the Indian side. These disparities are also evident in healthcare outcomes: Pakistan-occupied Jammu and Kashmir suffers from severe shortages of medical facilities and personnel, while Jammu and Kashmir has expanded public and private healthcare networks and achieved measurable improvements, including reductions in infant mortality.

Beyond socio-economic indicators, Pakistan-occupied Jammu and Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan face a profound democratic deficit. These territories remain politically suspended, lacking full constitutional recognition and meaningful parliamentary representation. They have no representation in Pakistan’s National Assembly or Senate; budgets are centrally determined, and control over natural resources rests with the federal government. This structural exclusion has fuelled grassroots movements and social unrest, often met with repression, arbitrary detentions, and prolonged incarceration. Allegations of enforced disappearances, extrajudicial killings, and the systematic targeting of journalists and activists further suggest that security concerns are routinely invoked to silence dissent.

By comparison, Jammu and Kashmir—particularly in the post-2019 period—functions as a counterpoint of formal parliamentary representation and institutional integration. Regardless of criticisms directed at Indian policy choices, the comparison underscores the scale of political and institutional deprivation in Pakistan-occupied Jammu and Kashmir.

The European Union remains one of Pakistan’s most significant economic partners, extending substantial trade access and preferential arrangements under frameworks such as the GSP+ scheme. These privileges are formally linked to commitments on human rights, democratic governance, and the rule of law. Yet, in practice, the situation in Pakistan-occupied Jammu and Kashmir (PoJK) exposes a striking gap between principle and enforcement. Political disenfranchisement, the absence of meaningful democratic representation, and restrictions on civil liberties persist without triggering serious European scrutiny or conditionality. The EU’s reluctance to link its economic leverage to tangible political rights in PoJK raises a fundamental question: if preferential access to the European market is not conditioned on democratic accountability and basic freedoms, then what credibility do Europe’s human rights instruments retain beyond declaratory value.

Europe’s approach to South Asia continues to be shaped by strategic underestimation and policy inertia. By treating the region as peripheral to its core interests, the EU has allowed a vacuum to emerge—one increasingly filled by China and other authoritarian networks that operate without transparency, accountability, or concern for local populations. Pakistan-occupied Jammu and Kashmir illustrates how institutional neglect and political exclusion can evolve into long-term geopolitical risk: a territory deprived of representative governance becomes fertile ground for external influence, securitisation, and instability. Europe’s failure to engage substantively with PoJK is therefore not merely a moral omission, but a strategic miscalculation—one that undermines its stated commitment to stability, democratic norms, and a rules-based international order.

In conclusion, Jammu and Kashmir is a reflection of two governance models with radically different outcomes. While Jammu and Kashmir’s trajectory demonstrates how infrastructure investment, institutional integration, and social policy can reshape a historically fragile region, the situation in Pakistan-occupied Jammu and Kashmir raises urgent humanitarian and developmental concerns. For the international community—and particularly for Europe—the priority should not be rhetorical equivalence, but human outcomes. Without sustained scrutiny, conditional engagement, and institutional accountability, millions will remain trapped in structural neglect—living not in darkness, but perpetually under the harsh light of the sun, without the protection of institutions that enable human flourishing.