Beyond Force in Azad Kashmir
Ishtiaq Ahmed
Bradford: The question of who bears responsibility for the current crisis in Azad Jammu and Kashmir may appear straightforward, but the reality is far more nuanced.
At its core, responsibility lies with both the Government of Pakistan and the Government of Azad Jammu and Kashmir.
Political miscalculations, misplaced priorities, an absence of strategic foresight, and an increasingly securitised approach to governance have collectively allowed the situation to deteriorate to the point where ordinary citizens are paying the highest price.
Lives have been lost, many more have been injured, and a climate of fear and uncertainty has taken hold.
Peaceful protest is a fundamental democratic right. While every state has a legitimate responsibility to maintain public order, responding to widespread public discontent primarily through the use of force rarely resolves underlying grievances. More often, it deepens mistrust and intensifies political polarisation.
Even if some individuals or groups within the protest movement have attempted to exploit the situation to advance agendas beyond the movement’s original demands, this does not diminish the responsibility of both governments and public institutions to manage political crises through dialogue, restraint, and effective leadership. A state’s response ultimately shapes whether tensions subside or escalate.
From the beginning, I have maintained that conducting genuinely free, fair, and peaceful elections amid such an intense political crisis would be extremely challenging. My concern was that proceeding without first addressing the underlying political tensions could aggravate an already fragile situation.
Sadly, recent developments appear to validate those concerns, with casualties increasing and political divisions becoming more entrenched rather than diminishing.
The Action Committee’s movement began as a response to legitimate economic and social grievances affecting the people of AJK. Its initial demands centred on issues of governance, affordability, and public welfare. More recently, however, some fringe voices have begun advocating slogans of independence or separation.
These positions neither defined the movement at its inception nor represent its widely understood objectives. Nevertheless, history repeatedly demonstrates that when governments fail to engage constructively with legitimate public concerns, political space is often created for more radical narratives to gain prominence.
Pakistan itself has witnessed similar dynamics before. The experience of East Pakistan, now Bangladesh, remains a sobering reminder that enduring political disputes cannot be resolved solely through coercive means. While historical circumstances differ, the broader lesson remains relevant: sustainable political stability is built through dialogue, inclusion, and public legitimacy rather than force alone.
The broader national context also deserves careful consideration. Pakistan continues to face varying degrees of political discontent in Balochistan, Sindh, and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.
It is therefore understandable that policymakers may be concerned about the wider implications of any perceived concessions in AJK, particularly if they fear similar demands could emerge elsewhere, including in Gilgit-Baltistan.
Whether those concerns are well-founded is open to debate, but they form part of the strategic calculations that cannot be ignored when analysing the state’s response.
That said, strategic concerns should not obscure an essential reality: AJK’s internal political challenges require political solutions. Restoring public confidence, creating meaningful channels for dialogue, and demonstrating responsive leadership are likely to prove far more effective than continued confrontation.
As time passes, the available policy options become narrower, while the political and human costs continue to rise.
There is another equally important concern. Increasingly, social media has become a platform for rhetoric that risks fuelling resentment between Pakistanis and Kashmiris. Such narratives serve neither community.
Governments and institutions should be scrutinised and, where necessary, criticised. But political disagreements should never be allowed to evolve into hostility between peoples whose histories, cultures, and futures remain deeply interconnected.
This is particularly true in countries such as the United Kingdom, where Pakistanis and Kashmiris live, work, and build their futures together. They are neighbours, colleagues, friends, and family members. Allowing political tensions to fracture these communities would be both deeply regrettable and profoundly counterproductive.
The people of Kashmir deserve robust advocacy for their constitutional, democratic, and human rights. Equally, they deserve a political discourse that promotes dialogue rather than division, reconciliation rather than resentment, and long-term stability rather than short-term political gain.
The current crisis should serve as a reminder that lasting peace and stability are achieved not through the expansion of force, but through political courage, institutional restraint, and a genuine commitment to democratic engagement. At this critical moment, wisdom—not confrontation, offers the most credible path forward.
The author is a British citizen of Pakistani origin with a keen interest in Pakistani and international affairs.
The article is the writer’s opinion, it may or may not adhere to the organization’s editorial policy.
