Pakistan’s Proposed Constitutional Changes: What Do They Mean for Azad Jammu and Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan? Dr Shabir Choudhry

 Pakistan’s Proposed Constitutional Changes: What Do They Mean for Azad Jammu and Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan?

Representation in Pakistan's Parliament, Political Identity and the Right of the People to Decide Their Future

Dr Shabir Choudhry, London. 11 November 2026.

A newspaper report published by Kashmir Express, Muzaffarabad, has raised an important, and potentially far-reaching question concerning the constitutional and political future of Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK) and Gilgit-Baltistan (GB).

According to the report, proposals are being considered under a proposed constitutional amendment for changes in the relationship of these two territories of Jammu and Kashmir with Pakistan.

The reported proposals include granting their residents Pakistani citizenship, providing representation in Pakistan's Parliament, allocating eight seats in the National Assembly to Azad Jammu and Kashmir and three to Gilgit-Baltistan, and providing five seats each in the Senate.

The report further suggests that the proposed constitutional changes would first be presented in Pakistan's Parliament and subsequently submitted to the respective legislative assemblies of Azad Jammu and Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan for approval.

If accurately reported, these proposals deserve serious attention. They are not merely administrative adjustments or questions of parliamentary representation. They concern the constitutional identity, political status and future relationship of two territories whose historical and political circumstances are closely connected with the unresolved Jammu and Kashmir dispute.

It is therefore necessary to examine what is being proposed, why it matters and, most importantly, whether the people concerned have been consulted.

A Constitutional Change with Far-Reaching Consequences

Pakistan has administered Azad Jammu and Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan through separate constitutional and administrative arrangements. Although both territories have their own legislative institutions, their relationship with the Pakistani government in Islamabad is different from that of Pakistan's constitutionally recognised provinces.

The newspaper report appears to suggest a significant change in this arrangement. Parliamentary representation would bring residents of these territories into Pakistan's legislative system in a more direct manner.

At first sight, some people may welcome this as an improvement in democratic representation. Having elected representatives in the National Assembly and Senate of Pakistan could provide a stronger parliamentary voice on issues affecting their daily lives.

However, political representation cannot be examined in isolation from constitutional status.

The crucial question is: What would these changes mean for the existing constitutional position of Azad Jammu and Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan, and for the internationally recognised context of the Jammu and Kashmir dispute?

A change that appears beneficial in terms of parliamentary representation could also have wider implications for the political future of the territories. Those implications must be explained openly before any decision is taken.

The Developments in Gilgit-Baltistan

The issue is not entirely speculative. There have been publicly reported developments concerning Gilgit-Baltistan's constitutional and financial arrangements.

On 17 July 2026, Dawn reported that the Gilgit-Baltistan Assembly had unanimously adopted a resolution seeking provisional provincial status and constitutional and political rights, including representation in Pakistan's National Assembly and Senate.

Furthermore, on 11 September 2026, Pakistan's Ministry of Law and Justice confirmed that consultations were under way concerning the constitutional and legal arrangements for Gilgit-Baltistan. The federal law minister stated that relevant stakeholders would be consulted and that different constitutional, financial and administrative options were being examined.

These developments provide an important background to the newspaper report.

However, an important distinction must be maintained. The publicly confirmed consultations concerning Gilgit-Baltistan do not, by themselves, establish that the specific parliamentary seat allocations or the wider proposals concerning both territories described in Kashmir Express have been formally approved or introduced as a constitutional amendment. We need the actual draft legislation before treating those details as government policy.

This distinction matters because a newspaper report, a political proposal, a government consultation and an enacted constitutional amendment are four different things.

Gilgit-Baltistan's Demand and the Kashmir Dispute

The demand for greater constitutional and political rights in Gilgit-Baltistan cannot simply be dismissed. Its people have legitimate concerns about democratic representation, financial resources, development and their ability to participate in decisions affecting their future.

For decades, Gilgit-Baltistan has operated under special administrative arrangements. Its people have sought greater political and constitutional rights, including representation in Pakistan's federal institutions.

The difficulty is that Gilgit-Baltistan is also part of the wider Jammu and Kashmir dispute. Any constitutional arrangement must therefore consider not only the immediate demands of its population but also the historical and political context of the former princely state.

This creates a difficult question for Pakistan: how can it provide meaningful democratic and constitutional rights to the people of Gilgit-Baltistan without taking unilateral steps that could prejudice the final settlement of the Jammu and Kashmir dispute?

The same question applies, although in a different constitutional context, to Azad Jammu and Kashmir.

The Position of Azad Jammu and Kashmir

Azad Jammu and Kashmir has a different constitutional history and administrative structure from Gilgit-Baltistan. It has its own Interim Constitution, elected Legislative Assembly, President, Prime Minister and government.

Its political and constitutional relationship with Pakistan is also connected with the unresolved dispute over Jammu and Kashmir.

Consequently, the proposed changes raise several questions.

·       Would parliamentary representation strengthen the political voice of Azad Jammu and Kashmir, or would it gradually bring its institutions into Pakistan's federal constitutional framework?

·       Would the proposed arrangements preserve the territory's distinct constitutional identity?

·       Would the people of Azad Jammu and Kashmir retain meaningful control over their political institutions and future?

These questions cannot be answered simply by allocating parliamentary seats.

We should also remember that the people of Azad Jammu and Kashmir have repeatedly raised concerns about political autonomy, economic rights, governance and the exercise of authority by institutions based outside the territory.

The experience of the Joint Awami Action Committee and its demands for economic justice, civil rights and accountable government demonstrate why constitutional arrangements must be judged by their practical consequences for ordinary people.

Who Has the Right to Decide?

This is perhaps the most fundamental question.

Constitutional changes affecting the future of Azad Jammu and Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan should not be treated as an internal administrative matter for Islamabad alone.

The people living in these territories have legitimate interests and aspirations that must be considered.

The process should involve:

1. Genuine consultation with the people of both territories.
2. Full participation of their elected representatives.
3. Independent constitutional and legal examination.
4. Transparency concerning the proposed changes.
5. Protection of their political, cultural and constitutional identities.
6. Consideration of the wider Jammu and Kashmir dispute and the principle of self-determination.

The people must be informed about the consequences of any proposed arrangement before being asked to support it.

Pakistan's own constitutional procedure also requires attention. Article 239 provides for constitutional amendments to be passed by a two-thirds majority in each House of Parliament. Other constitutional requirements may apply depending on the nature of the proposed changes.

But fulfilling Pakistan's domestic constitutional requirements and establishing the political legitimacy of a decision among the people concerned are two separate questions.

Both deserve consideration.

Is Parliamentary Representation the Same as Political Self-Determination?

We must not confuse these two concepts.

Having representatives in the National Assembly and Senate may improve participation in Pakistan's political system. It does not, by itself, resolve the question of self-determination.

Representation within another country's parliamentary structure is not necessarily the same as having the freedom to determine one's own political future.

For those who support an independent and united Jammu and Kashmir, this distinction is particularly important.

The future of the former princely state should not be reduced to a question of how many seats its different regions might receive in Pakistan's Parliament.

The wider question concerns the political rights and aspirations of all the people of the former state, including those living in Indian-administered Jammu and Kashmir, Pakistan-administered Azad Jammu and Kashmir, Gilgit-Baltistan and the diaspora.

Any lasting political settlement must take account of these different populations and their aspirations.

What Should the People Demand?

Instead of accepting or rejecting proposals without examining their contents, people in both territories should demand answers.

·       The governments in Muzaffarabad and Gilgit should explain what they know about these proposals.

·       Political parties should publish their positions.

·       Constitutional experts should examine the proposed legislation.

·       Civil society organisations should organise public discussions.

·       And the people should be given access to the actual draft before any final decision is taken.

·       There should be no secret constitutional arrangements affecting the future of millions of people.

Conclusion: Representation, Integration or Self-Determination?

The newspaper report from Muzaffarabad has brought an important subject into public discussion. The developments concerning Gilgit-Baltistan confirm that constitutional and administrative questions are being examined in Pakistan.

However, we must distinguish between confirmed government consultations and the specific proposals reported by the newspaper. The latter require documentary verification.

There is nothing inherently wrong with seeking better political representation, financial rights or constitutional protection for the people of Azad Jammu and Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan. These are legitimate matters for public debate.

But the wider political consequences must not be ignored.

If constitutional changes are intended to improve democratic participation, the people should be able to examine and judge them freely. If they are intended to change the relationship of these territories with Pakistan, that intention should be stated openly.

For those who believe in a united, independent Jammu and Kashmir, the central issue remains the right of its people to determine their own political future.

The people of Jammu and Kashmir should not be treated merely as recipients of constitutional arrangements designed elsewhere. They must be participants in deciding their own future.

The question is not simply how many seats Azad Jammu and Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan will receive in Pakistan's Parliament.

The bigger question is: Who has the authority to decide the political future of Jammu and Kashmir, and have the people themselves been given a genuine opportunity to express their wishes?

An Old Woman’s Simple Argument for the Existence and Oneness of God.

 An Old Woman’s Simple Argument for the Existence and Oneness of God.

This is a story from long ago. An elderly religious scholar was once passing by an old woman who was sitting at her spinning wheel, busy spinning thread.

The scholar greeted her and asked, “Madam, have you spent your entire life spinning thread, or have you also learnt something about religion?”

The old woman replied, “Thank God, I have learnt something about religion as well. If you wish to ask me anything, please go ahead.”

The scholar asked, “Very well, tell me: Does God exist?”

The old woman replied, “Certainly, He does.”

He then asked, “Do you have any proof of His existence?”

She answered, “I have my spinning wheel.”

The scholar asked, “How does your spinning wheel prove that?”

She explained, “My spinning wheel works properly. If even this small spinning wheel cannot operate without someone turning it, then how can the enormous spinning wheel of the heavens and the earth be running without anyone to operate it? Surely, it too must have someone who keeps it running, and that is God.”

The scholar was greatly pleased by the reasoning behind this simple explanation. He then asked another question:

“Very well, tell me: Is God one, or are there two?”

The old woman replied, “God is One.”

He asked, “Do you have any proof of that?”

She answered, “I have the same proof.”

He asked, “And how does that prove it?”

She explained:

“If two beings were operating my spinning wheel, and both turned it in the same direction, the wheel would continue to spin. But if one turned it in one direction and the other turned it in the opposite direction, the wheel would not keep spinning; it would break.

“From this, I have understood that if there were two gods, and both operated the great spinning wheel of the heavens and the earth in the same direction, time would move so quickly that a twelve-hour day would become only six hours long. The night would become shorter in the same way, and days and nights would follow one another so rapidly that time itself would come to an end much sooner.

“But if one god tried to turn the wheel of the heavens and the earth in one direction while the other tried to turn it in the opposite direction, the entire wheel of the heavens and the earth would break apart.

“That is why I believe that God is One.”

An Imaginary Interview with Kanjoos Begum. Dr Shabir Choudhry

An Imaginary Interview with Kanjoos Begum.

Love, Silence and the Language of the Heart

Dr Shabir Choudhry

After exchanging greetings and pleasantries, I asked her:

Why do some people call you Kanjoos Begum?

She smiled and replied:

“I use money, water and words thoughtfully and sparingly. In fact, we should be particularly careful about how we use words. A careless word can sometimes create problems that are difficult to resolve.”

A sensible man once remarked:

“You are so economical with words that you are even reluctant to speak, as if it costs some money!”

That is how a few people started teasing me by calling me Kanjoos Begum. But I am not miserly; I simply dislike waste.

Are you married?

Yes, I am.

Was it a love marriage?

In our families, the elders usually make decisions about marriages.

Does that mean you are unhappy with your marriage?

When did I say that? I was simply explaining who made the decision. Happiness and unhappiness are determined by how life unfolds, not merely by how a marriage begins.

What is your husband like?

He is a very good man.

Have you ever been in love with someone?

Yes, I have.

Who is he?

I don't think it is necessary to reveal that.

Are you sad that you could not marry him?

Not at all. Marriage and love are two different things. Besides, when I fell in love, I was already married.

And what about him? Was he married too?

Yes, he was.

Did he ever express his love for you?

Yes, he did.

And did you express yours?

No, I didn't.

Does he know that you love him?

Yes, he does.

If you never expressed your feelings verbally, how does he know about your love?

“True love does not always need words. Language is only one way of expressing feelings. Sometimes silence, one's behaviour, the eyes and genuine concern for another person can communicate far more than words. There is another language for expressing one's deepest feelings, which can only be understood through the eyes of the heart.”

Have you ever met him alone?

Absolutely not.

Has he ever asked you to meet him in private?

Absolutely not.

But people in love often arrange secret meetings. If he really loved you, surely, he would have tried to meet you?

“He loves me, and that is precisely why he has never asked to meet me alone. He does not want my reputation or dignity to be put at risk. Love is not simply about fulfilling one's own desires. Sometimes, caring about another person's dignity, peace of mind and happiness is also an expression of love.

“Love does not necessarily mean possessing someone or demanding their time. Sometimes it means respecting their circumstances, accepting their responsibilities and wishing them well, even when you cannot be together.”

What a remarkable kind of love! Does anyone else know about this relationship?

I don't think anyone knows.

Have you never wished that you could meet him?

Of course I have. But we are both married. We have our own lives and responsibilities. One must consider not only one's own feelings but also the rights and feelings of others.

Does that mean you have accepted that you may never be together?

She paused for a moment before replying:

“Life does not always give us everything we wish for. We cannot demand that every feeling must lead to a particular outcome. Sometimes, it is enough to know that someone genuinely cares about you and wishes you well.”

Have you ever met at all?

We sometimes exchange greetings at family functions or when attending someone's funeral. That is about the extent of our contact.

What do you think the outcome of this love will be?

“God willing, it will have a good outcome. We are sincere well-wishers of each other. We pray for one another and genuinely want both of us to have happy and peaceful lives.”

Have you ever met in your dreams?

She smiled and replied:

“Quite often! We talk to each other in our dreams and even have conversations involving questions and answers. Sometimes it feels as though we are communicating through telepathy. On several occasions, questions that come into my mind during the day seem to receive answers in my dreams at night.”

I was astonished.

Do you genuinely believe that the answers you receive in your dreams come from him?

She smiled and said:

“I am not claiming to have a scientific explanation for it. It is simply my personal experience and feeling. There are things in life that even we ourselves cannot fully understand.”

All this was quite surprising to me. I had expected to be offered a cup of tea during the interview, but instead she served me warm water with honey.

I laughed and said:

“Madam, you have demonstrated your stinginess here as well! At least you could have added a little more honey!”

She smiled and replied:

“Sir, honey should also be used thoughtfully. Adding more of something does not necessarily make it better!”

I drank the honey water, thanked her and left.

On my way back, I kept thinking about our conversation. Was she really a Kanjoos Begum, or was she simply a woman who believed in being economical in every aspect of life—not only with money, water and words, but even with her emotions?

Perhaps she believed that genuine feelings do not always need public display, repeated declarations or physical meetings. Perhaps she also understood that love and responsibility can sometimes exist side by side, even when life does not allow people to follow their hearts.

I was still trying to make sense of it all when one final thought came to mind:

If she is so economical with expressing her love in real life, how does she become so generous with words when they meet in their dreams?

And, of course, I still wonder whether she deliberately used so little honey—or whether that was simply another demonstration of her famous economy!

Pakistan-Administered Kashmir: A Humanitarian Crisis, a Demand for Rights, and the Need for Accountability, Dr Shabir Choudhry

 Pakistan-Administered Kashmir: A Humanitarian Crisis, a Demand for Rights, and the Need for Accountability

Why the grievances of the people must be addressed through dialogue, not force

By Dr Shabir Choudhry

The people of Jammu and Kashmir have endured decades of political uncertainty, conflict and competing claims over their future. Our aspirations are often discussed by governments which occupy us, and political organisations, but the everyday rights and welfare of ordinary people must never be pushed to the margins of the debate.

The recent crisis in Pakistan-administered Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK) has brought this issue into sharp focus. Protests over economic hardship, public services, governance and political representation developed into a much wider confrontation involving the Jammu Kashmir Joint Awami Action Committee (JAAC), regional authorities and the Pakistani forces.

The consequences have been serious. Reports have described deaths and injuries, arrests, restrictions on communications, disruption to public life and growing distrust between communities and institutions. International human rights organisations have called for investigations and meaningful dialogue.

These events should concern everyone who believes in human dignity, democratic accountability and the peaceful resolution of political disputes.

The central question is not whether a government has the authority to maintain public order. Every government has a responsibility to protect people and prevent violence. The more important question is whether that authority is exercised lawfully, proportionately and accountably—and whether the underlying grievances are addressed rather than suppressed.

From economic grievances to a wider political crisis

The Joint Awami Action Committee emerged as a platform for public demands relating to the cost of living, electricity tariffs, wheat-flour prices, governance and the use of local resources. Its mobilisation brought together people from different walks of life, including traders, transport workers, students, lawyers and activists.

The movement's demands have evolved into genuine and fundamental rights over time, and particular protests have involved different immediate issues. In 2026, the allocation of twelve legislative assembly seats to refugees from Indian-administered Jammu and Kashmir became a significant point of contention ahead of regional elections. Earlier protests had focused heavily on the cost of electricity, flour subsidies and the privileges enjoyed by political and administrative elites.

It would be a mistake to reduce these demands to a single slogan or assume that every participant has exactly the same political objective. A broad public movement can contain people with different views about the region's constitutional future while sharing concerns about economic justice, accountable government and basic rights for all the citizens.

What unites many of these grievances is a demand that the people who live in the region should have a meaningful voice in decisions affecting their lives.

It is sad to note that for demanding the above-mentioned basic rights, the Pakistani authorities and their puppets in POJK have accused the Action Committee of being an agent of India. The Pakistani media, strongly controlled by the Pakistani government, have drummed up these unfounded allegations.

In addition to this, they declared that anyone who supports the Action Committee is also viewed as anti-Pakistan and an agent of India.

A government that listens to those demands has an opportunity to rebuild public confidence. A government that treats peaceful dissent primarily as a security threat risks deepening the very alienation it claims to be addressing.

The human cost of the crackdown

The events of June 2026 marked a grave escalation. Reuters reported on 19 June that at least 24 people had been killed during nearly two weeks of unrest, including civilians and police officers, and that more than 500 people had been detained. The reporting also described widespread shutdowns, internet restrictions and disruption to businesses and daily life.

The United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights expressed concern about the deaths, restrictions on peaceful assembly and association, the ban imposed on JAAC under anti-terrorism laws, arrests of movement leaders and restrictions on internet access.

In its briefing of 17 July 2026, the UN human rights office called for prompt, thorough and impartial investigations into all deaths, whether involving protesters or members of the security forces. It also stressed the importance of legal representation, access to families, due process and meaningful, inclusive dialogue.

These calls are significant because they recognise two essential principles: every death deserves investigation, and no individual should be deprived of basic legal protections because of their political association.

The deaths of civilians cannot be dismissed as an unavoidable consequence of unrest. Nor should deaths among police or other security personnel be ignored. Each case must be investigated on its own evidence, and responsibility should be established through a credible process.

The figures reported by different organisations have varied, and the circumstances surrounding individual deaths are not necessarily identical. For that reason, the most responsible course is to publish verified records, investigate every case and avoid presenting disputed totals as conclusively established facts.

Families who have lost loved ones deserve answers. Injured people deserve medical care. Those who remain detained deserve access to lawyers and their families. Anyone whose whereabouts are unknown must be accounted for.

These are basic obligations of a state governed by the rule of law.

Freedom of expression is not a threat to public order

One of the most concerning aspects of the crisis has been the restriction of communications and public expression.

The UN human rights office warned that internet restrictions in the region were limiting people's ability to seek, receive and share information at a time of heightened tension. Such restrictions can have consequences far beyond social media. They can interfere with access to news, family communication, education, banking, business and the coordination of emergency assistance.

A communications blackout also makes it more difficult to establish what happened during violent incidents. Witnesses may struggle to communicate with journalists or legal representatives, while families may be unable to obtain reliable information about detained or injured relatives.

When public confidence is already weak, limiting access to information can create further suspicion and fear.

Governments may sometimes impose lawful restrictions in exceptional circumstances, but such measures must meet strict tests of legality, necessity and proportionality. They should not become a substitute for political dialogue or a means of preventing scrutiny of state conduct.

Peaceful criticism is not terrorism. Membership of a civil society organisation does not, by itself, establish criminal responsibility. Where individuals are accused of offences, the authorities must disclose the legal basis of the charges and allow a fair process in which evidence can be examined.

The proper response to peaceful dissent is not to silence it but to engage with it.

Human rights require accountability

The Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP), following a fact-finding mission in AJK, issued a statement on 29 August 2026 calling for urgent, inclusive political dialogue. It identified institutional distrust, restrictions on expression and connectivity, and a confrontational state response—including the disproportionate use of force—as factors that had deepened polarisation and weakened public trust.

The significance of this assessment is that the crisis cannot be resolved simply by restoring superficial calm. A region may appear quiet while the grievances that caused the unrest remain unresolved.

Accountability must be practical, transparent and independent. It should include:

• An impartial investigation into every death and serious injury connected with the unrest.
• Publicly accessible, verified information about those killed, injured, detained or reported missing.
• Access to legal representation and family contact for all detainees, alongside due process and fair trials.
• A review of the use of force, restrictions on communications and the application of anti-terrorism laws to civil and political activity.
• Appropriate remedies and compensation where unlawful conduct or negligence is established.
• Protection for journalists, witnesses, lawyers, activists and families seeking information or justice.

These measures should not be understood as concessions to one political faction. They are necessary safeguards for the entire population, including people who oppose the JAAC or disagree with its methods.

A fair investigation does not prejudge the outcome. It establishes the facts, identifies responsibility where evidence supports it and helps prevent future abuses.

The region's resources and the question of economic justice

Economic grievances in AJK also raise wider questions about the relationship between local resources, public revenue and the welfare of local communities.

Residents have long debated electricity costs, access to affordable flour, public-sector privileges, employment opportunities and the use of natural resources. These issues require detailed, transparent information rather than political slogans.

The authorities should publish accessible data showing how revenue is collected and spent, how electricity is priced, what subsidies are provided, which public projects are completed and how benefits reach different districts. They should also explain how local communities are consulted when decisions affect land, water, forests and energy resources.

Development should be judged by its impact on people's lives. A new road, power project or public building may be valuable, but it does not automatically mean that every community enjoys reliable electricity, affordable healthcare, good schools or fair economic opportunities.

Likewise, the announcement of a subsidy is not the same as ensuring that people can actually obtain essential goods at an affordable price.

The appropriate response is transparent budgeting, independent scrutiny, fair distribution of public benefits and meaningful participation by local communities. These are practical requirements for good governance, not demands that should be treated as threats to national security.

Democracy must mean more than holding elections

The political representation of AJK remains a sensitive and important issue. The dispute over the twelve seats allocated to refugees from Indian-administered Jammu and Kashmir demonstrated how electoral arrangements can become a source of wider public disagreement.

Any electoral system should be assessed against clear principles:

·       Fair representation,

·       Public confidence,

·       Constitutional legitimacy,

·       And the meaningful participation of people whose lives are governed by the resulting institutions.

Elections matter, but democracy is not limited to voting on a particular day. Democracy requires:

·       Freedom of expression,

·       The ability to organise peacefully,

·       Accountable institutions,

·       Access to information

·       And the right to challenge decisions without fear of arbitrary punishment.

Political differences should be addressed through lawful institutions and inclusive discussion. Where the rules themselves are disputed, the solution is to create a credible process for reviewing them—not to assume that force can settle the argument. 

A lasting political settlement also requires recognition that people in Jammu and Kashmir hold diverse views about their future. Some favour existing arrangements, others seek greater autonomy, and others advocate independence or a different constitutional settlement. No single position should be presented as the unanimous will of the population without credible evidence.

My own political position is that Jammu and Kashmir should have a united, independent and democratic future, determined by the free will of its people. That is a political aspiration, not a claim that every resident currently shares the same preference. A genuinely democratic approach must allow people to express different views peacefully and without coercion.

International attention must lead to meaningful action

International concern is important, but statements alone will not resolve the crisis.

The United Nations, international human rights organisations, democratic governments and parliamentary bodies should continue to seek reliable information, encourage access for independent observers and call for transparent investigations. They should press for the release of people detained arbitrarily, the restoration of normal communications and the protection of peaceful civic activity.

International engagement should be evidence-based and consistent. It should not become an excuse to target ordinary Pakistani citizens or to turn human rights into a competition between rival political narratives.

The people of AJK need practical support for the protection of their rights. They need their allegations to be investigated, their legal rights respected, and their elected institutions to respond to public concerns. Where abuses are established, there must be appropriate accountability.

The international community should also support a credible political dialogue involving a broad range of local stakeholders, including civil society, elected representatives, community leaders and those who hold different political views. It must be understood that dialogue cannot be meaningful if participants are:

·       Intimidated,

·       Excluded or

·       Denied access to the information needed to make informed decisions.

A peaceful movement deserves a peaceful political response

The people of AJK should not have to choose between economic hardship and political silence. They should be able to demand affordable essential services, accountable government and respect for their rights without being treated as enemies.

At the same time, all parties should reject attacks on civilians, intimidation and violence. A peaceful rights movement gains strength from its commitment to the dignity and safety of every person. Its demands are best advanced through organisation, evidence, public debate and democratic participation.

The state has a particular responsibility because it controls the institutions, security forces and legal mechanisms that affect people's lives. It must demonstrate that the law protects citizens rather than merely punishes those who criticise authorities or challenge their actions to silence people or intimidate them.

The immediate priorities are clear:

·       Establish the facts surrounding the deaths and injuries;

·       Account for all detainees and missing persons;

·       Ensure access to justice;

·       Restore the conditions necessary for public discussion;

·       And begin serious negotiations over the grievances that led to the unrest.

Conclusion: Dignity, justice and the future of Jammu and Kashmir

The crisis in Pakistan-administered Kashmir is not simply a matter of protest management. It concerns the relationship between citizens and the state, the use of public resources, democratic representation and the protection of fundamental freedoms.

The deaths and injuries reported during the unrest demand independent investigation. Restrictions on expression and communications require scrutiny. Detained people must receive due process, and the grievances of ordinary residents must be addressed through credible political engagement.

A government cannot build lasting legitimacy through force alone. Nor can a political movement secure a just future by abandoning peaceful methods or disregarding the rights of others.

The way forward is accountability, transparent governance, respect for human rights and an inclusive political process. The people of Jammu and Kashmir deserve to live with dignity, to express their views freely and to participate meaningfully in decisions about their future.

Their voices should not be silenced by fear, and their rights should not depend on whether those in power agree with their demands.

The people are not the enemy. Their rights are not a security threat. And lasting peace cannot be imposed in place of justice.