Action Committee and dialogue. Who is holding the talks when the Committee is accused? Who will implement?
What value do talks with a B team have? The Committee may end up scoring an own goal. What are the achievements so far? https://youtu.be/8xoizg2J2-o
Memorandum to the Government of Pakistan. 9-9-2026
Through the High Commission of Pakistan, London
Subject: Immediate action required to end repression, restore fundamental rights and provide justice to the people of Pakistan -Administered Kashmir
We, the undersigned, concerned citizens, members of the Kashmiri diaspora, human rights defenders and supporters of democracy and fundamental rights, respectfully submit this petition to the Government of Pakistan concerning the grave and continuing situation in Pakistan-Administered Kashmir.
The people of Pakistan-Administered Kashmir have suffered immensely during the past more than three months. What began as a movement demanding fundamental rights, economic justice, accountable government and dignity has developed into a serious human rights and humanitarian crisis.
The Jammu Kashmir Joint Awami Action Committee (Action Committee) has been demanding fundamental rights for the people. Its demands should not be confused with terrorism. The Action Committee and the people participating in its civil-rights movement must not be collectively labelled as terrorists simply because they have challenged government policies or taken to the streets to demand their rights.
Peaceful political dissent is not terrorism. Demanding fundamental rights is not terrorism.
We recognise that violence against civilians, police officers, public property or any other person must be investigated and dealt with according to law. However, allegations of violence by individuals cannot justify collective punishment of an entire population or the suppression of legitimate political and civil rights.
The human cost
The people of Pakistan-Administered Kashmir have paid an enormous price.
More than 100 people have reportedly lost their lives during the wider crisis, while hundreds have been injured. Human-rights organisations and other sources have documented allegations of excessive use of force, arrests, denial of medical access, communications restrictions and disruption of essential supplies.
Families have lost fathers, sons, brothers and other loved ones. Many injured people have reportedly struggled to obtain timely medical treatment. Reports have also raised serious concerns about restrictions affecting food, medicines, transport and other essential commodities.
No government should respond to a legitimate demand for rights by placing the civilian population under collective suffering.
The people of Kashmir are human beings with the same fundamental rights as people elsewhere. They have the right to life, liberty, dignity, peaceful assembly, freedom of expression, access to healthcare, due process and equal protection under the law.
Our demands
We therefore call upon the Government of Pakistan and the Government of Pakistan-Administered Kashmir to take the following immediate steps:
1. Withdraw all politically motivated and fabricated FIRs
All false, fabricated and politically motivated FIRs registered against peaceful political activists, members of the Action Committee, journalists, lawyers, human-rights defenders and ordinary citizens must be withdrawn.
No person should be prosecuted merely for participating peacefully in a political or civil-rights movement.
2. Withdraw all punitive actions taken since 5 June 2026
All administrative, legal and punitive actions taken against peaceful activists and citizens since 5 June 2026 should be reviewed and withdrawn where they relate solely to peaceful political or civil-rights activity.
This should include the withdrawal of politically motivated cases, restrictions, harassment and other punitive measures imposed on peaceful activists and their families.
The Government itself announced the reinstatement of protest-related cases following its decision of 5 June 2026, demonstrating the urgent need for an independent review of these cases.
3. Release political and civil-rights activists
All persons detained solely because of their peaceful political activity, participation in demonstrations or expression of dissent should be released immediately, unless there is credible evidence of a recognisable criminal offence established through due legal process.
4. Compensation for families of those killed
The families of all civilians who lost their lives during the protests and subsequent unrest must receive adequate financial compensation.
Compensation must not be treated as a substitute for justice. Every death must be independently investigated, and those responsible for unlawful killings must be held accountable.
5. Compensation and medical support for the injured
All persons injured during the unrest must receive free and adequate medical treatment.
Those who have suffered permanent disabilities or loss of earning capacity must receive appropriate compensation and long-term medical and rehabilitation support.
6. Compensation for businesses and other economic losses
Businesses, shopkeepers, traders, transport operators, daily-wage workers and other people who suffered financial losses as a direct consequence of prolonged restrictions, violence, curfews, road blockades or other government measures must also receive appropriate compensation.
People should not be economically punished simply because they live in an area affected by political unrest.
7. Restore unrestricted access to food and medicines
Food, medicines, milk, baby formula and other essential commodities must never be used as instruments of political pressure.
The authorities must guarantee uninterrupted access to essential supplies and ensure that hospitals, ambulances, doctors and medical workers can operate without obstruction. Human-rights documentation has specifically raised concerns about restrictions affecting medical access and essential supplies.
8. Establish an independent investigation
We demand an independent, impartial and credible judicial or international-standard investigation into:
The investigation must have the power to obtain official records, examine police and security-force orders, interview witnesses and publish its findings.
9. Publish the complete lists
The authorities should publish verified and independently reviewable lists of:
Families have a fundamental right to know the fate of their loved ones.
10. End collective punishment
No population should be punished collectively for the alleged actions of particular individuals.
If an individual has committed a crime, that individual should be prosecuted according to law. The entire population must not be treated as criminal because some individuals may have committed offences.
11. Guarantee fundamental rights
The Government of Pakistan must respect and guarantee the fundamental rights of the people of Pakistan-Administered Kashmir, including:
12. Begin meaningful political dialogue
The crisis cannot be resolved through force, arrests, FIRs or military and paramilitary deployments.
The Government of Pakistan and the Government of Pakistan-Administered Kashmir should immediately enter into meaningful, direct and unconditional dialogue with representatives of the Action Committee and other legitimate representatives of civil society.
The objective should be to resolve the outstanding grievances through peaceful political means.
Our appeal
We appeal to the Government of Pakistan to recognise that the people of Pakistan-Administered Kashmir are not the enemy.
They are citizens whose grievances deserve to be heard.
The Action Committee's demand for fundamental rights should be addressed through dialogue and democratic institutions, not through force.
We urge the Government of Pakistan to learn from the suffering of the past three months and to take immediate steps to restore confidence, justice and peace.
The deaths cannot be reversed.
The injuries cannot simply be forgotten.
The suffering of families cannot be ignored.
But justice, accountability and reconciliation are still possible.
We therefore call upon the Government of Pakistan to:
· Stop the repression.
· Withdraw the false and politically motivated cases.
· Release those detained for peaceful political activity.
· Compensate the victims and their families.
· Restore fundamental rights.
· Ensure access to food and medicine.
· Conduct an independent investigation.
· Resolve the remaining issues through meaningful dialogue.
The people of Pakistan-Administered Kashmir deserve justice, dignity, democracy, fundamental rights and peace, not force and repression.
Signed:
Concerned citizens, members of the Kashmiri diaspora, human-rights defenders
and supporters of democracy
London, United Kingdom
9 September 2029
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.
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.
The struggle is between Pakistan and Azad Kashmir. Salam to the people of Rawalakot. It is our struggle.
Zahid Mughal says Pakistan must stop oppression and resolve this through talks. The use of guns will only create more problems.
