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.