On a bustling Rawalpindi highway in Pakistan’s Punjab, a scene unfolds with unsettling familiarity when dozens of passenger vehicles bound for the various districts of Pakistan-occupied Jammu and Kashmir (PoJK) are suddenly halted by a group of masked men. What follows this forced halt is chilling as the veiled Pakistani men begin to deface these Kashmiri vehicles with slogans of “Pakistan Zindabad” and “Pakistan Army Zindabad”.
Yet, this is not an isolated incident of arbitrary vandalism. It is but one episode in a disturbing trend of xenophobic aggression that has gripped Pakistan in recent days, which is a venomous reaction to the escalating unrest within PoJK. Alarmed by the surge in protests against its oppressive policies, the Pakistani government has responded with brute force that left scores dead and dozens injured. These incidents have once again exposed the colonial mindset of both the Pakistani state as well as its people towards Jammu and Kashmir. It also refocuses attention on Islamabad’s continued denial of basic rights to the PoJK people beyond the façade of a nominal but hollow political system.
The roots of this turmoil can be traced back to the grievances festering within PoJK over the past year. In May 2023, the decades-simmering discontent exploded as protests erupted against exorbitant electricity tariffs and the withdrawal of subsidies on essential commodities, especially wheat. Given the scale of demonstrations, a Joint Awami Action Committee (JAAC) was convened, with representatives from every district of PoJK, to spearhead the protests in demanding the redressal of their legitimate grievances.
The JAAC came up with a list of ten demands seeking withdrawal of electricity taxes, restoration of wheat subsidy, transfer of ownership of hydel power projects to PoJK government, 4G cellular services, and debarring of student unions, among others.
However, the response from Islamabad was not one of conciliation or reform but of evasion and repression. The Pakistani state, aided by its local proxies such as the toothless regional government, engaged in a game of cat and mouse with the JAAC, turning a deaf ear to the plight of the impoverished region. As these political demonstrations gained momentum in May this year, the Pakistani authorities resorted to their familiar tactic of violent suppression in their attempts to crush the peaceful protestors with their ruthless efficiency. For instance, in an incident in Muzaffarabad on May 13, Pakistan’s Paramilitary Rangers killed three people and injured a dozen by using live ammunition on peaceful protesters.
Yet, amidst the chaos and bloodshed, a remarkable defiance emerged from the streets of PoJK. For the first time in its recent memory, the people of PoJK dared to challenge the stranglehold of the Pakistani military apparatus, defying the omnipresent gaze of the armed forces and the intricate intelligence grid of its Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI). Social media is awash with posts showing young men replacing Pakistan’s national flag with that of the PoJK flag on major landmarks of Muzaffarabad and other prominent cities and towns.
At the same time, while Islamabad’s violent response exposes the hollowness of its self-ascribed benefactor role towards Kashmiris, the concomitant increase in the xenophobic retort of the common Pakistanis towards the PoJK residents, in essence, reveals the deeply ingrained colonial mindset that underpins Pakistan’s historic approach towards J&K. These protests have also forced the Pakistani state to push its local proxies such as Muslim Conference to hold counter rallies in support of Islamabad and Pakistan Army, which have, however, been met with disdain by the locals.
It is interesting how Pakistan has been able to perpetuate the narrative of its benevolence by claiming to have provided PoJK with the so-called ‘autonomous’ governance system through various constitutional arrangements over a period of time. Yet, it is these arrangements that have effectively deprived the people of PoJK of their rights, political autonomy, and resources while allowing Pakistan to maintain overarching control over the region, and engage in its resource loot, from minerals to water resources.
For instance, the 1974 Interim Constitution of PoJK, drafted by Pakistan’s Ministry of Kashmir Affairs, established separate offices for the president, prime minister, and Supreme Court, among others. However, it granted Islamabad unchallenged authority to “dismiss any elected government…irrespective of the support it may enjoy in the AJK Legislative Assembly.” As such, not only can Pakistan’s Minister of Kashmir Affairs dismiss the PoJK government, but even the region’s chief secretary, the highest-level federal bureaucrat in Muzaffarabad can exercise such discretionary powers to sack the prime minister, which is a travesty of even the very nominal nature of this system.
Hence, this constitutional arrangement essentially renders PoJK’s so-called ‘autonomous’ government subservient to Pakistan’s Federal Ministry of Kashmir Affairs.
Likewise, the constitution established two executive forums for PoJK, including the Muzaffarabad-based PoJK government, which is formed by the largest party in the Azad Kashmir Legislative Assembly and Islamabad-based Azad Kashmir Council (AKC), which functions under the control of Pakistan’s prime minister. What is significant is that the Council exercises absolute power over the PoJK Assembly with its decisions final and beyond any judicial review. The constitution further details that the Government of Pakistan retains control over 52 subjects through the Kashmir Council, which leaves hardly anything in the legislative domain of the PoJK Assembly. As such, this provides Islamabad control over virtually everything, of any importance, to PoJK, thereby reinforcing how the local government’s authority does not exceed beyond the municipal affairs.
Moreover, Pakistan retained provisions for deploying its federal bureaucrats to PoJK in the 1974 Constitution, including civil and police officers who assume decision-making positions across its administrative units. This enables Islamabad to directly manage the region’s micro cum macro-governance affairs, as these officers are more accountable to the federal government than to the PoJK government. The helplessness of PoJK is reflected in one of Human Rights Watch’s annual reports which states that “the Pakistani bureaucracy is the real administrative power, the ISI and the Pakistan army exercise coercive power. And under the constitution, the elected representatives are subservient to the Kashmir Council controlled by Pakistan. High Court and Supreme Court Judges can only be appointed by approval of the Ministry of Kashmir Affairs in Islamabad.”
Additionally, the Pakistani Army has taken on a dominant role in managing the region, with a two-star officer of the Murree-based 12 Infantry Division wielding more power than the president and prime minister of this so-called ‘Azad’ Kashmir government.
As such, this arrangement mirrors a typical colonial apparatus as it allows Islamabad to exercise control over both micro and macro-level governance affairs of the region. For a long time, Pakistan has used the nominal autonomous characterisation of PoJK’s political offices to obscure the reality of its municipal-level government authority to create the impression of self-rule in the region. It is in this context that the year-long protests in PoJK assume significance as they not only unnerved the Pakistani state and its military establishment but also exposed its imperial approach towards the region.
Moreover, the initial demands for economic relief have gradually expanded to include calls for greater autonomy and self-determination—demands that Pakistan has suppressed for years. This shift demonstrates that the people of PoJK are determined to challenge Pakistan’s military dominance in pursuit of their political and economic rights.
The writer is an author and columnist and has written several books. His X handle is @ArunAnandLive. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely that of the author. They do not necessarily reflect News18’s views.