How Azad is Azad Kashmir, see it. DIG Sajjad Husain was sacked for not killing innocent people. Wake up!
Two Pakistanis, an IG police and a Chief Secretary, were rewarded for what they did in POK. The issue is not 12 seats or 8 more seats; the main issue is Pakistani control. https://youtu.be/KjIrk89-OxA
A Police Officer Who Chose Conscience Over Force
Dr Shabir Choudhry, 3 September, London
There are times when an individual's character becomes visible in the most difficult circumstances.
A senior police officer of Azad Jammu and Kashmir, Mr Sajjad Hussain, DIG Counter-Terrorism, was suspended and is facing a disciplinary action, not because of some wrongdoing, but because he refused to take drastic action against the peaceful protestors who were demanding fundamental rights. The proposed police action could surely have resulted in the death of innocent people.
What makes this case particularly significant is the account I have received about the circumstances surrounding that action. I have been told that Mr Sajjad Hussain has a good reputation and is a thorough gentleman. He is a decent, respectable and professional person. That is why the information surrounding his case has particularly concerned me.
The order to act against the protesters
During the confrontation between the authorities and the Joint Awami Action Committee (JAAC) in Rawalakot, the situation became extremely tense. The government had decided to take strong action against the movement for fundamental rights.
According to the account available to me, this senior police officer was instructed by the Inspector General of Police to conduct an operation against the Action Committee and the people who were supporting their campaign for justice and fundamental rights.
The officer reportedly expressed his unwillingness to carry out an armed operation in which innocent people could be killed. If this account is correct, then his position raises an important question:
What should a police officer do when he believes that carrying out an order may result in the death of many innocent people?
Should he simply obey because the order has come from a superior officer? Or does he have a professional and moral responsibility to protect the lives of citizens? Of course, this is not an easy question.
A police officer has a duty to maintain law and order. He must also obey lawful orders from his superiors. But the fundamental purpose of policing is to protect people, not to treat the population as an enemy and kill them indiscriminately.
The official notification
The notification produced by the authorities is important because it provides documentary evidence that disciplinary action was taken against this officer.
The document refers to the relevant provisions of the AJK Police Rules, 1977, and records the departmental action against him. However, we should be precise about what the document establishes.
The notification establishes that disciplinary action was taken. It does not, by itself, establish every detail of the circumstances leading to that action.
The additional information—that the officer had been asked to conduct an operation against the Action Committee and expressed concern that innocent people could be killed—is information that I have received separately. I strongly believe that this matter should be independently investigated and made public.
If the officer was punished because he refused to take part in an operation that he believed could result in the killing of innocent civilians, then this would be a matter of considerable public importance.
What happened in Rawalakot?
The wider events in Rawalakot cannot be understood simply by accepting one side's narrative.
The authorities accused the JAAC and some of its supporters of violence and attacks against law-enforcement personnel. Government and police statements alleged that armed elements were involved. The fact is that it is the men in uniform who were firing at the innocent civilians, which reportedly resulted in the deaths of more than 100 civilians, and there were also reports of dozens of injuries.
At the same time, the JAAC and its supporters disputed aspects of the official account and accused the authorities of using excessive force against protesters.
Because of these competing accounts, an independent and credible investigation is particularly important.
If protesters attacked police or security personnel, those responsible should be identified and dealt with according to law. But if security personnel used excessive or unlawful force against peaceful protesters, those responsible should likewise be held accountable. The law must apply to everyone.
A police officer is not a soldier fighting an enemy
There is an important distinction that should never be forgotten. A soldier fighting an enemy in a war operates under a different set of circumstances from a police officer dealing with citizens inside the territory he is sworn to protect.
A protester is not automatically an enemy. A political activist is not automatically a terrorist. And a person demanding his rights does not automatically become a threat to the state.
Of course, if an individual becomes violent, attacks another person, carries an illegal weapon or commits a criminal offence, the law should take its course.
But the existence of violence by some individuals cannot justify indiscriminate action against everyone. This is where the professionalism and judgement of senior police officers become particularly important.
The courage to say no
It is easy to obey an order. It can be much more difficult to say:
“I cannot do this if innocent people may be killed.”
A person who says this may face consequences. He may lose his position, face disciplinary proceedings, damage his career or become unpopular with those in power.
But there are occasions when a person's conscience becomes more important than his career. If the account concerning this officer is correct, then he deserves at least to have his case heard fairly and transparently.
He should not be condemned merely for refusing to participate in an action that he believed could result in innocent deaths.
The state must listen to its own officers
There is another lesson here for those who govern this region of Jammu and Kashmir. Senior police officers are not simply instruments for implementing political decisions.
They are trained professionals. They understand the ground situation. They know their officers, their communities and the potential consequences of using force.
A wise government should listen to professional advice, particularly when that advice concerns the possible loss of civilian life. If a senior police officer tells his superiors that an operation could result in innocent people being killed, the appropriate response should surely be to ask:
How can we achieve our objective without putting innocent lives at risk? That should be the starting point for discussion—not punishment.
Dialogue is better than force
The events surrounding the JAAC confrontation also demonstrate a much larger problem. Political disputes cannot normally be solved permanently through police action. The ruling elite of Pakistan and their puppets in Pakistani-controlled Kashmir must understand that with your power and force:
· You may disperse a demonstration.
· You may arrest activists.
· You may impose restrictions.
· You may deploy additional troops to kill and intimidate people.
· But none of these measures necessarily resolve the underlying grievances.
· Eventually, the government and those raising the grievances have to sit down and talk.
Force may produce temporary silence, but silence is not the same as peace. Dialogue is not a sign of weakness. It is often the strongest instrument available to a government.
My personal reason for writing this
I will support all citizens of Pakistani-controlled Kashmir who are treated wrongly by the Pakistani officials or their puppets. I will protect and enhance their fundamental rights
As noted above, I know where DIG Mr Sajjad Hussain comes from. His village is only a few miles from my village. He is a local man. Many of my friends and family members know him or studied with him, and they tell me that he is a thorough gentleman.
However, it does not mean that he should be considered above the law. Nor does it mean that every decision he has made in his professional career must automatically be regarded as correct. But it does mean that his character and his version of events deserve to be heard.
Let the truth come out
I am not asking anyone to accept my account simply because I have written it. I am asking for transparency. If this officer was suspende for legitimate professional misconduct, let the authorities explain what he did wrong.
If he disobeyed a lawful order without justification, let the departmental proceedings explain the circumstances.
But if he was punished because he refused to participate in a military-style operation to crush this campaign of the local people for their fundamental rights because he feared that innocent citizens might be killed, as it happened in the past, then the public deserves to know that as well.
The complete departmental record should be made available, subject to legitimate legal and privacy considerations. An independent investigation should establish what orders were issued, who issued them, what the officer's response was, what action was subsequently taken against him, and why.
The truth should not be afraid of investigation.
And if a police officer really did put the lives of innocent people before his own career, then perhaps we should ask ourselves whether we have been looking at the wrong person as the problem. Perhaps the officer was not failing in his duty; and the Pakistani IG Police was the wrongdoer in this case.
Perhaps Mr Sajjad Hussain was reminding those above him what the duty of a police officer actually is. Surely, the duty of police is not to kill and intimidate innocent people who peacefully demand their fundamental rights.
A uniform gives a person authority. But it does not take away his conscience.
And in difficult times, a society needs public servants who dare to say no when they believe that innocent human beings may pay the price. END.
Dr Shabir Choudhry is a London-based political analyst, author, and expert on South Asian affairs, with a focus on Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Kashmir. Email: drshabirchoudhry@gmail.com
Abb kia ho ga, jo wardi wala chaaey ga. Who wants the destruction of Pakistan?
Our struggle is for azadi.
Forget about 12 seats; save lives. A new puppet will bring new problems and impose the writ of Pakistan, and we will continue to suffer.
Order Pakistan ka chalta ha - aur ham Azad hain.Ham jootey polish karney aur Ji Hazoori Karney main Azad hain.
Prime Minister kon bane ga, faisla Pakistan karey ga, laikn ham azad hain. Wasaail per qabza Pakistan ka, laikn ham azad hain. https://youtu.be/5pLzLWyquTM
A message from Tehsil Bhimber: How many more people are you going to torture and kill? Release Mohammed Saif.
Stop oppression in AJK. Enough is enough. Don’t force people to pick up guns. Resolve all the issues by a process of dialogue.
https://youtu.be/jbNyuaYgfF4
India–Pakistan War? Serious Escalation in Azad Kashmir — Why Are People Resisting Pakistani Attack?
Pakistan must abandon gun diplomacy and resolve disputes through meaningful dialogue — force can prove counterproductive, and may invite other powers.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0aDgGEUXW8
Dr Shabir Choudhry, London, August 2026.
We like to believe that we are free and liberated human beings. But are we really? It is worth asking ourselves an uncomfortable question: Are we truly independent, or are we living under systems of control that shape almost every aspect of our lives?
Think about our daily lives. If we lose our internet connection, we suddenly feel helpless. We lose contact with the outside world. We cannot easily communicate with our friends, relatives, or even our wife, husband, and children. A single interruption in technology can isolate us within minutes.
But control goes much deeper than technology.
Our thoughts and opinions are constantly influenced by others. What we read, what we watch, what we believe, and even what we buy are shaped by media, advertising, governments, corporations, and social networks. Our preferences are studied, predicted, and often manipulated.
The way we behave, the way we dress, the way we drive, the language we use, and even how we present ourselves to society are influenced by social norms and institutions that we rarely question. We often think we are making our own choices, while many of those choices have already been shaped for us.
We believe we are independent individuals, yet our lives are regulated by laws, financial systems, digital platforms, economic forces, political structures, and international power relations. Those who control information, trade, technology, economics, and politics exercise enormous influence over the lives of ordinary people.
This does not mean we are slaves without free will. We still make choices, but many of those choices exist within boundaries created by others. Freedom is often more limited than we imagine.
Despite all this, it is comforting to believe that we are independent and free to do whatever we like. Perhaps the greatest form of control is convincing people that they are completely free while their choices, attitudes, and behaviour are quietly being shaped behind the scenes.
The real challenge is not simply to claim that we are free; it is to recognise the forces that influence us and to think critically before accepting them as our own.
