Why Divide the Protest When We Need to Be Heard?
Dr Shabir Choudhry, 8 September 2026, London.
We, the people of Jammu and Kashmir, regard India and Pakistan as the main obstacles to our independence. We have serious complaints about their conduct in the State of Jammu and Kashmir, which has been forcibly divided between the two countries.
China also controls parts of the territory of Jammu and Kashmir. Beijing occupied Aksai Chin following the 1962 war with India, while Pakistan ceded the Shaksgam Valley to China in 1963, enabling China to consolidate its control over these territories.
People of Jammu and Kashmir, particularly those who came to Britain from Pakistan-administered Jammu and Kashmir, have been holding demonstrations against India for many decades. I cannot recall a significant demonstration against India taking place in any small town in England. Almost all major demonstrations were held outside the Indian High Commission in London because this was considered more effective and more likely to attract attention.
Sadly, when it comes to exposing the wrongdoings of Pakistan, the same people often shy away from doing so because they do not want to defame Pakistan or hurt its interests.
Having said that, the United Kashmir Peoples National Party (UKPNP) has held dozens of protests outside the Pakistani High Commission in London. I acknowledge that a few other political parties and organisations have also held protests there from time to time.
Following the recent actions and alleged wrongdoings of the Government of Pakistan in Pakistan-administered Kashmir, members of the Kashmiri diaspora have held protests in many parts of the world. However, very few protests have taken place outside the Pakistani High Commission in London because some political activists do not want to embarrass Pakistan.
Another view is that perhaps they fear that if they openly criticise or embarrass Pakistan, particularly by demonstrating outside the Pakistani High Commission, they could “face the music” when they visit their homeland, Azad Kashmir, travelling through Pakistan.
Sensible members of the Kashmiri diaspora believed that it would be more effective to hold demonstrations outside Pakistani diplomatic missions in various countries. While plans were being made for such demonstrations, all of a sudden, the Action Committee requested the Kashmiri diaspora to hold demonstrations in countries around the world on 13 August, coinciding with the United Nations Security Council Resolution of 13 August 1948.
It is believed by some political activists that certain collaborators who had established advisory committees advised the Action Committee to hold demonstrations on 13 August 2026, rather than on 14 August.
Some political analysts believe that this was a pre-emptive action intended to ensure that no major demonstration would take place on 14 August, Pakistan’s Independence Day. A large demonstration outside the Pakistani High Commission on that day could have embarrassed Pakistan, particularly because official Independence Day ceremonies were being held and dignitaries from other countries were expected to attend.
This time, the Action Committee asked people to hold demonstrations on 9 September 2026, and some genuine nationalists were planning to hold a demonstration outside the Pakistani High Commission in London.
To undermine this demonstration, some people have arranged demonstrations in various towns, including High Wycombe, Luton, Slough, Peterborough, Bradford, Birmingham and elsewhere.
The important question is this: if the objective is specifically to draw attention to the situation in Pakistan-administered Kashmir among the British public, Parliament, the media, human-rights organisations and the Pakistani diplomatic mission, is it not more effective to concentrate our efforts outside the Pakistan High Commission in London rather than divide our strength among several smaller demonstrations elsewhere?
The smaller demonstrations are not necessarily without value. They can raise awareness locally and provide opportunities to engage with people in different communities. However, they do not necessarily have the same symbolic, political or media impact as concentrating a large number of people at the diplomatic mission of the government whose policies we are protesting against.
The strongest argument, therefore, is not simply that these towns are “hundreds of miles away” from the High Commission. The more important issue is that fragmenting a protest can dilute its visibility and reduce the likelihood of attracting national media coverage, political representatives, human-rights organisations and attention from the institution being addressed.
Why Divide the Protest When We Need to Be Heard?
At a time when the people of Pakistan-administered Kashmir have been facing an extremely serious political and humanitarian crisis, our priority should be to make their voice as strong and visible as possible.
Instead, separate protests have been arranged in Luton, High Wycombe, Slough, Peterborough, Bradford and Birmingham. While people have every right to demonstrate wherever they wish, we must ask a simple strategic question:
What impact can a series of small, dispersed demonstrations have compared with one large, united and peaceful demonstration outside the Pakistan High Commission in London?
The Pakistan High Commission is the official diplomatic representative of the Government of Pakistan in the United Kingdom. If our message is directed at the Government of Pakistan, surely the most appropriate place to deliver that message is directly outside its diplomatic mission.
A large and peaceful demonstration outside the High Commission creates a visible and unmistakable message. It has a greater chance of attracting journalists, human-rights organisations, Members of Parliament, political representatives and members of the British public. It also demonstrates the strength of feeling within the Kashmiri diaspora.
By contrast, dividing the same potential participants among several towns inevitably reduces the size and visibility of each individual demonstration. A protest of a few dozen people in several different locations may generate some local attention, but it is unlikely to create the same national or diplomatic impact as hundreds of people standing together in London.
The issue is not whether people should have the right to protest in Luton, Birmingham, Bradford or elsewhere. They do. The question is one of strategy.
When a community faces a serious crisis, its voice is strongest when it speaks with unity and clarity.
We should therefore ask ourselves:
Do we want six or seven small protests that may receive limited local attention, or one powerful, peaceful and highly visible demonstration outside the Pakistan High Commission that cannot easily be ignored?
Our objective should not be to compete with one another. It should be to ensure that the suffering and legitimate demands of the people of Pakistan-administered Kashmir are heard.
We may have different political parties, organisations and opinions, but on fundamental human rights we should be able to stand together.
Unity creates visibility. Visibility creates pressure. And pressure can help bring governments to the negotiating table.
If we genuinely want the world to hear the voice of the people of Pakistan-administered Kashmir, we should not deliberately divide that voice when it matters most. END.
