A Call for New Freedom in Kashmir | Talking about the rights of Kashmiris, is Pakistan respecting those rights in its own territory?

 A Call for New Freedom in Kashmir

Demands for Reform: Accountability, Representation, Dialogue

Pakistan has long championed the right to self-determination for Kashmiris. Yet recent events in Azad Jammu and Kashmir expose a stark contradiction. If public opinion and political participation truly matter, why is there no tolerance for peaceful movements?

Humayun Ahmed Shrawan

June 09, 2026 — 6 minutes to read — Read 150 times

Download PDF

It is impossible to resolve the political crisis through repression

Pakistan presents Azad Jammu and Kashmir to the world as an autonomous, democratic region. But the reality looks different. The standoff between the Joint Awami Action Committee (JAAC) and the Azad Kashmir government has escalated, and the crackdown on protesters — including the deadly clashes in Rawalakot after a businessman was shot — shows that space for dissent is shrinking. This is not only a political crisis; it reveals deep distrust between the rulers and ordinary people.

For years the people of Azad Kashmir have demanded administrative reform, accountability, and genuine representation. Instead of dialogue, authorities have responded with bans, arrests, and force. Banning JAAC has only widened public sympathy for the movement. History shows that popular movements cannot be crushed by executive orders; attempts to suppress them usually make them stronger.

So one must ask: can a state that insists on Kashmiris’ right to self-determination truly listen to the voices in the territory it governs? Is the Azad Kashmir government representative of its people, or mainly an extension of Islamabad’s policies?

Banning JAAC raises a fundamental democratic question. In a functioning democracy, differences should be resolved through discussion, dialogue, and constitutional processes. Prohibiting a popular movement risks deepening division rather than restoring stability. Authorities may believe restrictions will silence opponents, but repression rarely eliminates political demands. Instead, it can broaden support for dissenting causes — as historical examples across South Asia demonstrate.

The loss of lives in the Rawalakot clashes is tragic and should prompt an impartial investigation. Blaming protesters without a fair inquiry violates basic principles of justice. The public outcry over the shooting was not spontaneous; it reflected long-standing grievances, administrative failures, and accumulated frustration.

When governments choose force, arrests, and sanctions over listening, instability grows. The solution to this crisis lies not in repression but in dialogue, accountability, and respect for democratic rights.

Autonomy in Azad Kashmir: reality or political theatre?

Pakistan presents Azad Kashmir as self-governing, yet Islamabad’s influence over key decisions is evident. That raises serious doubts about the region’s capacity for genuine autonomy.

Debate over seats reserved for refugees illustrates the problem. JAAC’s demand to abolish those seats — which they argue distort local representation — deserves open political debate rather than being dismissed by a ban. Constitutional and electoral questions should be settled through parliamentary debate and public consultation, not securitization.

The Azad Kashmir Supreme Court has warned that constitutional changes must arise from democratic processes, not pressure. Today, that democratic environment is under strain.

The inherent contradiction in Pakistan’s Kashmir policy

For decades Pakistan has argued for Kashmiris’ right to self-determination. Yet the repression of dissent in Azad Kashmir reveals a troubling double standard. Promoting democracy internationally while stifling dissent at home weakens moral authority. Relying on administrative control instead of trusting popular voices undermines political legitimacy.

The crisis in Azad Kashmir goes beyond a local dispute: it raises broader questions about democracy, representation, and accountability. If Islamabad and the Azad Kashmir administration genuinely seek stability and peace, they should abandon punitive politics and embrace dialogue. Treating citizens’ voices as democratic partners, not enemies, offers a path to durable solutions. If they do not, today’s crisis may be the first step toward greater instability.

Today’s Kashmir can still call for a new freedom.