The recent explosion of protests in Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK) casts a long shadow, resonating through decades and emphasizing a recurring theme in the region’s history: the desire for self-determination. Founded in 1947 as a symbol of hope for Kashmiri emancipation, the AJK is currently dealing with internal dissatisfaction.
These recent protests bring back memories of the turbulent partition period as well as the story of Sheikh Abdullah, a famous Kashmiri leader who once dreamed of an independent Kashmir. Abdullah’s ambition, while eventually foiled by realpolitik, demonstrates the deep desire for Kashmiri self-rule. The All Jammu & Kashmir Muslim Conference, later known as the National Conference in 1939, was founded by Sheikh Abdullah in 1932 and became the first political party in Kashmir. The similarities between Abdullah’s ambitions and the current disappointments in AJK are startling. Both express a common sense of disenfranchisement and a desire for more control over their destiny. However, unlike Sheikh Abdullah, who called for an independent Kashmir spanning both sides of the Line of Control, the AJK protesters appear to be more concerned with resolving internal issues. Rising electricity rates, economic hardship, perceived government mismanagement and a sense of alienation from decision-making processes are driving the current turmoil.
Led by the Joint Awami Action Committee (JAAC), the demonstrations started as a nonviolent march on 11th may. The protestors aimed to achieve ten demands, Economic issues are at the top of the list, with calls for wheat subsidies similar to those in Gilgit-Baltistan, and the cost of producing electricity from the Mangla Hydropower Project in AJK should be used to calculate the electricity rate. They also wish for a stronger political voice. Demands include removing limits on student unions and holding elections, as well as increased financing and authority for local representatives. Their platform also includes anti-corruption measures and environmental protection, as well as calls for accountability and sustainable forestry practices. The message is clear: AJK citizens want economic fairness and a say in their own development.
While the protests ultimately secured concessions on essential goods like wheat flour and electricity, the loss of life during clashes with security forces cannot be ignored. Tragically, four people—including a police officer—have died as a result of the recent demonstrations. These deaths raises a serious question regarding Azad Kashmir government’s commitment to the social contract with its citizens. A contractarian approach is a theoretical viewpoint that sees the relationship between the state and its people as a social contract in which people consent to follow the laws and regulations in return for the state providing them with protection and governance. Despite the theoretical underpinnings of the social contract, which require a mutual understanding of obligations between the state and its citizens, the state’s actions in Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK) reveal a glaring failure to fulfill its most fundamental duty: protecting its people’s lives. The state’s incapacity to protect its citizens from the excessive force used by Pakistani Rangers against protesters demonstrates its failure to fulfill the principal responsibility committed to it under the social contract. The right to life is the most basic of all human rights, and it is the state’s primary responsibility to assure its protection. When the state fails to prevent the unlawful deprivation of life, either through its agents or by agreeing to their conduct, it violates the very premise upon which the social contract is based. This failure to protect citizens’ most fundamental rights calls into question the state’s commitment to the ideals of the social contract, as well as its legitimacy in the eyes of the people. Maslow’s hierarchy of needs states that conflicts are more likely to occur when citizens’ basic wants are not addressed. In addition to making matters worse, the state’s use of force to quell opposition undermines public confidence since it does not engage in constructive dialogue.
The violent suppression of nonviolent protests by the rangers not only violates citizens’ rights to express dissent, but it also demonstrates a fundamental breakdown of the social contract. Excessive force against nonviolent demonstrations violates democratic values and further alienates the populace, promoting feelings of betrayal and disillusionment with the state. Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter forbids the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. The Pakistani Rangers’ conduct against unarmed civilians engaging in peaceful protests in a disputed territory, could be seen as a violation of this fundamental provision of the UN Charter. The inability to uphold the concepts of autonomy, representation, and respect for civil liberties undermines the confidence and mutual obligations that should underpin the relationship between the government and the people.
Furthermore, another crucial aspect to consider is that, Pakistan has consistently condemned India’s policies in Kashmir, emphasizing the need for peace, protection of human rights, and the resolution of the
Kashmir conflict in accordance with UN resolutions. However, recent protests in AJK suggest that Pakistan’s treatment of people in the region may not align with the principles it promotes internationally. On one side it condemns India for banning political parties in Kashmir, but on other side there is a ban on student councils in Azad Kashmir. Allegations of human rights violations and lack of political freedoms in AJK have raised questions about Pakistan’s commitment to upholding the rights of all Kashmiris, regardless of their location. Pakistan must ensure that its actions in AJK reflect the values it advocates for in Indian-administered Kashmir. In conclusion, Pakistan’s stance on Indian-occupied Kashmir is commendable, it is essential for Pakistan to uphold consistency in its approach towards all Kashmiris, regardless of their location. By addressing the issues voiced in AJK and supporting the rights of all Kashmiris, Pakistan may set an example for the international community and contribute to a peaceful resolution of the dispute.
The international community should also take steps to protect the rights of Kashmiris on both sides of the Line of Control. The UN and other global authorities should monitor the situation in AJK and IOK and hold Pakistan and India responsible for any abuses of human rights.
