From Self-Determination to Administrative Control: Is Democratic Space Disappearing in Pakistan-administered Jammu and Kashmir?

From Public Servants to Silent Servants: The New Restrictions in Azad Jammu and Kashmir.

By Dr Shabir Choudhry, London, 4 June 2026.

For decades, Pakistan has argued before the international community that the people of Jammu and Kashmir must be allowed to determine their own future. This has been the cornerstone of Pakistan's diplomatic position on the Jammu and Kashmir dispute since 1947.

That position is reflected in Article 257 of the Constitution of Pakistan, which states:

"When the people of the State of Jammu and Kashmir decide to accede to Pakistan, the relationship between Pakistan and that State shall be determined in accordance with the wishes of the people of that State."

On paper, this is an important democratic commitment. It recognises that the people of the former princely State are not merely subjects of policy but possess the right to determine their own constitutional future.

Unfortunately, the reality on the ground increasingly appears to be moving in the opposite direction.

A New Government Circular

On 29 June 2026, the Deputy Commissioner of Mirpur issued an official circular directing all serving and retired government employees not to participate in any activity connected with the Joint Public Action Committee, which the authorities have declared a proscribed organisation.

The circular goes much further than prohibiting attendance at public meetings.

It directs employees and pensioners not to:

• Share material on Facebook, WhatsApp, Instagram or other social media platforms;
• Upload or circulate information relating to the organisation;
• Encourage others to do so; or
• Attend its meetings or gatherings.

The circular further warns that anyone violating these instructions may face disciplinary proceedings, criminal prosecution and even suspension of salary or pension.

Whether one agrees or disagrees with the political objectives of the Joint Public Action Committee is beside the point.

The larger question is whether a democratic society should criminalise peaceful political association and expression in this manner.

A Broader Pattern

This circular does not stand in isolation.

Recent months have witnessed the arrest of prominent leaders of the rights movement, reports of political activists being placed on Pakistan's Fourth Schedule under anti-terrorism legislation and increasing restrictions on political activity within Pakistan-administered Jammu and Kashmir.

Taken together, these developments suggest that the democratic space available for peaceful political dissent is shrinking.

If this trend continues, the consequences may extend far beyond the immediate political controversy.

Democracy Requires More Than Elections

Governments often point to elections as evidence of democracy. China, Russia and many other undemocratic regimes also hold elections. It must be noted that democracy consists of much more than the right to vote every few years.

It also requires:

• Freedom of expression;
• Freedom of association;
• Freedom to travel;
• Peaceful political opposition;
• An independent judiciary;
• Equality before the law; and
• Protection of fundamental rights.

A right to dissent is also important, and government confident of its public support does not normally fear peaceful criticism.

Indeed, democratic governments are strengthened—not weakened—by open debate.

The Constitutional Contradiction

Perhaps the greatest contradiction lies within Pakistan's own constitutional framework.

Article 257 suggests that the people of Jammu and Kashmir possess the right to determine their future.

Yet the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974, allows political participation only for those who support the ideology which subscribes to accession to Pakistan.

Advocating independence or other constitutional alternatives is effectively excluded from the political process.

If, in addition, peaceful political activists are subjected to anti-terrorism legislation or administrative restrictions, one must ask:

How can people exercise free choice when only one constitutional option may be openly advocated?

This is not merely a political question. It is a constitutional one.

Extending Restrictions to Pensioners

One particularly striking aspect of the recent circular is that it applies not only to serving government employees but also to retired officials.

A pension is generally regarded as a legal entitlement earned through years of public service.

Threatening to suspend pensions because of peaceful political activity raises serious legal and ethical questions.

It also risks creating an atmosphere in which retired citizens feel unable to express their political opinions freely.

Lessons from History

History offers many examples of governments attempting to suppress political dissent through administrative measures.

Such policies may produce temporary silence, but they rarely resolve underlying political grievances.

The British Empire relied upon restrictive laws, preventive detention and censorship to maintain control over India. Yet it eventually discovered that durable political stability cannot be achieved through coercion alone. The lesson remains relevant today.

Political disputes are resolved through dialogue, constitutional reform and public confidence—not through fear and oppression.

Pakistan's International Credibility

Pakistan has consistently criticised India for restrictions on political freedoms in Indian-administered Jammu and Kashmir. Those criticisms deserve to be examined on their own merits.

However, Pakistan's international position will inevitably be weakened if similar concerns arise in the territory under its own administration. A state's moral authority depends not only upon what it says but also upon what it does.

If Pakistan advocates democratic freedoms internationally, it must demonstrate the same commitment within the territory it administers.

The Way Forward

Peaceful political disagreement should never be mistaken for violence and terrorism.

Governments have both the right and the responsibility to act against those who advocate or commit violence and terrorism.

But peaceful criticism, constitutional debate and political activism belong to the normal functioning of a democratic society.

The people of Jammu and Kashmir have endured decades of conflict, uncertainty and competing national and regional narratives. They deserve something better than shrinking political space.

If Pakistan genuinely believes that the future of Jammu and Kashmir should be determined according to the wishes of its people, then it should create an environment in which those wishes can be expressed freely, peacefully and without fear.

The true test of democracy is not how a government treats those who agree with it. It is how it treats those who peacefully disagree.

History will judge governments not by the powers they exercised but by the freedoms they protected.

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