Pakistan’s ‘Azad’ Kashmir myth is crumbling fast

For decades, Pakistan has projected Pakistan-occupied Jammu and Kashmir (PoJK), which it calls “Azad Jammu and Kashmir", as a "model of Kashmiri self-governance and freedom". Islamabad has repeatedly used the territory as evidence in its international campaign on Kashmir, arguing that the region represents the aspirations of Kashmiris living outside Indian territory. Yet the events unfolding across PoJK today tell a very different story. What began as protests over economic hardship, rising electricity costs and inflation has evolved into something far more politically significant. Increasingly, the demonstrations are becoming an expression of anger against Pakistan’s governance model itself and a challenge to Islamabad’s long-standing claim that the region enjoys genuine autonomy.

The latest ongoing unrest that is plaguing Pakistan-occupied Jammu and Kashmir demonstrates that the core grievance in PoJK is no longer merely economic. Rising prices and unemployment may have triggered many protests, but beneath those immediate concerns lies a much deeper frustration. Large sections of the population increasingly view the political system imposed on the territory as unrepresentative, unaccountable and controlled from Islamabad. The demand is no longer limited to cheaper electricity or subsidised flour. Many protesters now openly question Pakistan’s authority over the region and challenge the reality behind the word "Azad", which literally means free.

More from Opinion

This irony has become increasingly difficult for Islamabad to hide. Officially, Pakistan portrays the territory as self-governing. In practice, however, critical decisions relating to governance, security and political direction are heavily influenced by Pakistan’s federal institutions and military establishment. Local political leaders often possess limited authority while major strategic decisions are made elsewhere. As a result, many residents have come to see the “Azad” label not as a reflection of freedom but as a political slogan masking a system of external undemocratic control.

The latest crisis has deepened after authorities moved against the Joint Awami Action Committee (JAAC), declaring it a terrorist entity. In reality JAAC is one of the most prominent civil-society-led rights movements operating in the region. The administration designated the organisation under anti-terrorism legislation, effectively treating a protest movement as a security threat. This decision marked a significant escalation in the region. Rather than addressing the grievances raised by demonstrators, the state, as usual, chose to criminalise the movement itself. For many residents, this reinforced the belief that dissent is increasingly being treated as a challenge to Pakistan’s authority rather than as a legitimate expression of public frustration.

The consequences were immediate and severe. Thousands of protesters gathered in Rawalakot to oppose the crackdown. According to reports emerging from the region, Pakistan Rangers opened fire on the crowds, resulting in significant civilian casualties. More than two hundred people were reported injured, and several civilians lost their lives during the confrontation. For local residents, these clashes were viewed as another example of the state using force against unarmed civilians demanding accountability and just political rights.

What makes the current unrest particularly important is that it follows a pattern that has become increasingly familiar over the past several years. The events of June 2026 are not an isolated incident but part of a recurring cycle. In May 2024, widespread protests over flour prices and electricity costs triggered a major confrontation between demonstrators and security forces. Several protesters were killed before Islamabad agreed to temporary concessions. The agreements eased tensions for a short period but failed to address the underlying structural problems.

The same pattern resurfaced in September 2025 when demonstrations centred around Muzaffarabad escalated into another major confrontation. Once again, deaths and injuries were reported. Once again, security deployments increased dramatically as authorities imposed restrictions on communication and movement. And once again promises were made that ultimately failed to resolve the fundamental issues driving public anger.

The repetition of this cycle is perhaps the most revealing aspect of the crisis. Economic grievances trigger protests. Security forces respond with force. Communication networks are disrupted. Agreements are negotiated under pressure. The agreements remain only partially implemented. Public anger returns. New protests emerge. The cycle repeats itself. Each repetition deepens distrust between the population and the authorities while strengthening the perception that Islamabad is unwilling to permit genuine political participation in the territory.

Communication blackouts have become a particularly controversial feature of these crackdowns. Internet shutdowns and restrictions on telecommunications regularly accompany major protests. Officially, these measures are justified as necessary for maintaining public order. In practice, they limit the flow of information and make it more difficult for residents to document events or organise demonstrations. Such tactics have increasingly drawn criticism because they create the impression that authorities are attempting to manage perceptions rather than address grievances.

The growing instability has also begun attracting international attention. Several foreign governments have issued travel advisories warning their citizens about the deteriorating security situation in the region. Diplomatic missions have advised travellers to avoid areas affected by demonstrations and security operations. These warnings are significant because they directly contradict Islamabad’s narrative that Pakistan-occupied Jammu and Kashmir is stable, peaceful and politically content. When foreign governments publicly caution their citizens against visiting a territory due to security concerns, it undermines claims of normalcy and highlights the seriousness of the unrest.

The political structure of Pakistan-occupied Jammu and Kashmir itself has long been a source of controversy. One of the most debated aspects is the existence of twelve reserved seats in the Legislative Assembly for so-called refugees from Indian-administered Jammu and Kashmir. These seats play a crucial role in shaping political outcomes. Locals argue that the arrangement allows Islamabad to maintain influence over the assembly regardless of local electoral preferences. Since these seats form a significant voting bloc, they can affect government formation and legislative decisions even though the individuals they supposedly represent are largely absent from the territory itself.

This arrangement has led many people to question the democratic nature of the system. Elections are held, political parties compete and assemblies function. Yet PoJK locals contend that the overall framework ensures that ultimate authority remains aligned with Islamabad’s interests. As public frustration grows, this issue is increasingly becoming part of the broader debate about representation, autonomy and political rights.

Perhaps the most striking aspect of the current protests is the contrast they expose between Pakistan’s international rhetoric and its domestic actions. For decades, Islamabad has positioned itself as a champion of Kashmiri rights on the global stage. However, the treatment of protesters in Pakistan-occupied Jammu and Kashmir raises uncomfortable questions about the consistency of that position.

The contradiction becomes even more apparent when comparing developments on either side of the Line of Control. While political debates surrounding Jammu and Kashmir remain intense, there has been significant expansion in infrastructure, connectivity, healthcare facilities, educational institutions and democratic participation over recent years. New highways, railway projects, airports, investment initiatives and local elections have transformed parts of the region’s economic landscape. Pakistan-occupied Jammu and Kashmir, by contrast, continues to face recurring protests over basic services such as electricity, employment opportunities and governance.

This difference has become increasingly visible due to modern communications and social media. Residents now compare infrastructure development, educational opportunities and economic prospects across the region in real time. Such comparisons inevitably influence public perceptions. When people repeatedly protest for basic necessities while hearing constant claims about political freedom, the credibility of those claims begins to erode.

The current protests therefore represent more than another episode of economic unrest. They reveal a growing crisis of legitimacy. The central issue is no longer simply inflation or electricity tariffs. It is the widening gap between the political narrative promoted by Islamabad and the lived experiences of many residents of Pakistan-occupied Jammu and Kashmir. Every crackdown, every communication blackout and every attempt to criminalise dissent appears to deepen that gap.

The most significant development is that increasing numbers of protesters are no longer directing their anger solely at local administrators. Their criticism is increasingly aimed at the broader political structure governing the territory. This marks a potentially important shift. Economic grievances can often be managed through subsidies, financial packages or temporary concessions. Questions about political legitimacy and self-governance are far more difficult to contain.

For years, Pakistan presented “Azad” Kashmir as proof of its commitment to Kashmiri aspirations. Today, the streets of Rawalakot, Muzaffarabad and other towns are presenting a different story. The recurring protests suggest that many residents no longer accept official descriptions of autonomy at face value. Instead, they are demanding accountability, representation and a genuine voice in determining their future. As these demands grow louder, the greatest challenge facing Islamabad may not be controlling the protests themselves but answering a question that the unrest has brought into sharp focus: that is, if the territory is truly "Azad", why is its population then caged politically, economically and socially?

(Raja Muneeb is an independent journalist and columnist. He tweets @rajamuneeb. The views expressed in this article are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect the views of Firstpost.)