Web desk: In a region long admired for its serenity and natural splendour, the recent unrest in Azad Jammu and Kashmir has posed a sobering question about the durability of peace, the integrity of governance, and the resilience of national unity.
What began as a civic movement to highlight local grievances has now devolved into violence and disruption, threatening the region’s social cohesion and inviting opportunism from external adversaries.
The demonstrations, spearheaded by the Joint Awami Action Committee, were ostensibly rooted in legitimate frustrations over economic neglect and disparities in representation, most notably, the demand to abolish reserved seats for refugees in the Azad Kashmir Legislative Assembly.
Yet, the descent into violence, the targeting of law enforcement agencies, and the destruction of public infrastructure indicate that the matter extends far beyond electoral adjustments or fuel subsidies.
What we are witnessing is a calculated exploitation of public discontent that risks undermining the constitutional architecture of the region. It is imperative to understand that the right to protest, a cornerstone of any democracy, carries with it both responsibility and limits.
Peaceful assembly, lawful dissent, and institutional redress form the legitimate channels through which grievances must be aired.
However, when such movements morph into violent confrontations with security personnel, or are co-opted by elements seeking to damage national institutions, they cease to be expressions of democratic will and become instruments of disorder.
The state must respond not only with firmness but with foresight. The failure to deliver basic services, curb endemic corruption, and institute administrative reforms in Azad Kashmir is not a new phenomenon.
Reports of crumbling infrastructure, understaffed hospitals, and widespread bribery in land and revenue departments have persisted for years. It is precisely this systemic neglect that creates fertile ground for agitators to operate under the guise of popular protest. But there is a larger strategic context that cannot be ignored.
Statements from Indian officials, such as Defence Minister Rajnath Singh’s declaration that Azad Kashmir will “cease to remain part of Pakistan”, must not be treated as rhetorical excess.
Rather, they should be recognised as a component of a long-term campaign, both diplomatic and ideological, to delegitimise Pakistan’s claim to the wider Jammu and Kashmir region. In this light, any internal disorder within Azad Kashmir provides adversaries with an opportunity to advance that narrative internationally.
Pakistan, for its part, must not only safeguard its territorial integrity but also ensure that its governance reflects the democratic principles it espouses.
The protection of refugee representation in Azad Kashmir, for example, is more than an administrative detail; it is a symbolic affirmation of the unity of the broader Kashmiri identity across the Line of Control.
Calls to eliminate these seats risk not just alienating a historically significant constituency, but also fragmenting the very idea of Kashmir as a united entity.
The demand for recalibration of refugee representation can and should be entertained through legal and legislative channels. But their outright removal, particularly under the pressure of mob action, would set a dangerous precedent, that the structure of a constitutional order can be reshaped by coercion rather than consensus.
Moreover, it would strengthen the perception, encouraged by hostile actors, that Azad Kashmir is turning against the Pakistani state, an image that is increasingly being projected through social media by elements within the diaspora.
Indeed, the digital domain has emerged as a crucial theatre in this unfolding crisis. The recent internet shutdown, while controversial, was an attempt to prevent the amplification of inflammatory narratives designed for international consumption.
Within hours, hashtags labelling Azad Kashmir as “occupied” by Pakistan began trending globally, undermining decades of careful diplomacy and fuelling misperceptions among foreign observers unfamiliar with the complexities of the region.
The international dimension of this crisis demands particular vigilance. In an era where information warfare often precedes physical conflict, the weaponisation of misinformation can have tangible consequences on Pakistan’s foreign policy objectives and its diplomatic credibility.
At a time when Pakistan must strengthen its case on the international stage regarding the situation in Indian-administered Kashmir, particularly in the wake of the 2019 constitutional changes by New Delhi, internal fragmentation within Azad Kashmir could not come at a worse time.
Yet, the path forward lies not in the curtailment of rights, but in the revitalisation of democratic governance. To that end, a two-pronged approach is required. First, there must be immediate administrative reform to address the material grievances of Azad Kashmir’s citizens.
This includes transparent budgeting, anti-corruption mechanisms, and improvements in health, education, and infrastructure. Second, a long-term political education campaign is needed to encourage the electorate to vote on performance and accountability rather than tribal loyalties or emotional appeals.
The people of Azad Kashmir, like those in any democratic society, hold the ultimate power to reshape their future. If the ruling elite has failed to serve, it is the responsibility of the electorate to hold them accountable, not through violence or vandalism, but through the ballot box.
A peaceful transition of power based on merit and service will not only improve governance but also act as the strongest rebuttal to those who question Azad Kashmir’s democratic maturity and its connection to the Pakistani federation.
There is no question that deprivation breeds anger. But the challenge for the state and for its citizens is to ensure that this anger is not manipulated into becoming a weapon against the state itself.
History has shown that once constitutional boundaries are breached and public trust erodes, restoring order becomes infinitely more difficult. As the region stands at a critical juncture, the choices made now will echo far beyond the valleys of Azad Kashmir.
Either the people and the state can rise together to reform and restore what has been lost, or they can allow instability to fester, handing victory to those who have long sought to divide Kashmir from within and without.
In the end, the real measure of statecraft is not how it handles peace, but how it navigates crisis. Azad Kashmir now tests the wisdom of Pakistan’s leadership, the resilience of its institutions, and the maturity of its citizens. It is a test we cannot afford to fail.
