The unrest in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK) highlights issues with Pakistan’s governance model, which relies on coercion rather than consent. Despite portraying itself as a defender of Kashmiri rights globally, Pakistan faces criticism for suppressing the rights of people in the territories it controls. Residents in PoK have been protesting with slogans like “Pakistani Forces Out” and “We Want Basic Rights,” reflecting their frustration at being silenced. This unrest not only affects the local population but also tests the international community’s commitment to upholding fundamental freedoms in disputed areas.
The Joint Awami Action Committee (JAAC) protests in PoK have escalated, revealing Pakistan’s authoritarian response to demands for affordable food and fair representation. The protests have united various sectors of society, including traders, transporters, lawyers, students, and civil society members. Instead of engaging in dialogue, Islamabad has chosen to crackdown on dissent, labeling it a ‘security threat’ and intensifying its militarization efforts. The JAAC has presented a 38-point charter of demands, seeking changes like reducing electricity tariffs and eliminating reserved assembly seats that maintain military dominance in PoK’s legislature.
As tensions rose in Rawalakot, PoK, authorities resorted to suspending mobile networks and internet services, proscribing the JAAC as an organization inciting terrorism. The crackdown involved mass arrests, raids, and the deployment of additional security personnel. The killing of a senior JAAC figure in Rawalakot marked a critical moment, sparking violent clashes across the Poonch district. Eyewitnesses reported higher casualties than official figures, indicating a severe escalation of the situation.
The unrest in PoK underscores broader governance challenges in Pakistan, emphasizing the country’s reliance on coercion over consent. It also exposes contradictions in Pakistan’s foreign policy, where it champions Kashmiri rights internationally while suppressing those same rights domestically. The crisis in South Asia highlights the need to address governance deficiencies and human rights violations in conflict-affected regions, prompting questions about international accountability under international law.
