Violence-Marred Elections in PoJK and Inclusive Democratic Participation in Indian-Administered Kashmir
The political crisis unfolding in Pakistan-occupied Jammu and Kashmir (PoJK) has become one of the most serious confrontations between citizens and the governing authorities in recent years. What began on June 5 as a localised dispute over economic grievances and governance failures quickly metastasised into a territory-wide movement marked by shutdowns, mass demonstrations, and an increasingly forceful state response. The unrest has not only strained the relationship between the government and the public but has also cast a long shadow over the Legislative Assembly elections being held in three phases beginning July 27, raising fundamental questions about political accountability and democratic space in the region.
While Islamabad projects a democratic image, reports from Muzaffarabad, Mirpur, and Rawalakot point to election boycotts, violent crackdowns on protesters, and internet blackouts. The Jammu Kashmir Joint Awami Action Committee (JKJAAC) has rejected what it calls “cosmetic elections,” protesting reserved refugee seats, rising electricity tariffs, and decades of military control. Security forces have allegedly fired on demonstrators, triggering civilian casualties and intensifying the crisis.
By late July, PoJK had entered a decisive and volatile phase. The long march organised by the Joint Awami Action Committee (JAAC) in Rawalakot became a tragic turning point. On July 27, at least twenty-one people were reported killed and dozens injured after security forces allegedly opened fire on march participants. This marked the bloodiest day in nearly two months of agitation. Videos circulating on social media platforms showed crowds carrying injured protesters, volunteers transporting casualties in private vehicles due to blocked roads, and women pleading for safe passage for ambulances. While some footage could not be independently verified, the sheer volume of material reflected the scale of public mobilisation and the intensity of the confrontation.
The violence soon spread beyond Rawalakot. In Muzaffarabad, the capital, fresh demonstrations erupted after Friday prayers, with protesters blocking major roads, burning tyres, and setting ablaze election banners and party posters. Police responded with tear gas, leading to prolonged clashes. A JAAC activist, Moeez, was killed, and thousands attended his funeral in Lower Plate, signalling the deepening emotional and political resonance of the movement. In Rawalakot, another young man, Shafqat Hussain, was shot dead shortly after prayers, further inflaming tensions.
The unrest radiated outward to Kotli, Khoi Ratta, Nikyal, Sehnsa, and parts of Neelum Valley, where protesters blocked the Neelum Highway. Residents in Muzaffarabad, Mirpur, and surrounding areas reported disruptions to mobile internet and communication services, adding to the sense of crisis. The government’s decision to declare JAAC a banned organisation and arrest several of its leaders only intensified public anger. Authorities argued that such measures were necessary to restore order, but activists insisted that the crackdown reflected a shrinking democratic space and an unwillingness to address legitimate grievances.
The timing of the unrest coinciding with phased Legislative Assembly elections has further complicated the political landscape. The elections, already being conducted under unprecedented security arrangements, have been marred by allegations of violence, irregularities, and partisan interference. In Kotli, PPP leaders accused PML‑N supporters of involvement in the killing of a PPP worker during polling. In another incident, Punjab’s Information Minister claimed that bags of ballot papers were found at a PPP candidate’s residence, alleging attempts to manipulate the vote. These accusations, whether proven or not, underscore the erosion of trust in electoral institutions and the fragility of democratic processes in PaJK.
Pakistan security personnel have fired on peaceful unarmed protesters. The casualty figures are placed at nearly 40. The protesters say that this could be upwards of a hundred and they’ve accused Pakistan’s military of having forcibly taken away bodies from local hospitals. The images out of PAJK have been truly horrifying. In some images you can see bodies strewn on the streets.
Solidarity demonstrations in Pakistani cities such as Karachi and Lahore indicate that the crisis has resonated beyond the territory’s borders. Students, civil society groups, and political activists have rallied in support of JAAC’s demands, while lawyers across PoJK have staged strikes protesting the arrests of activists and concerns over due process. Their involvement broadens the social base of dissent and lends institutional weight to calls for accountability.
Amid this turmoil, the Pakistani military has sought to frame the unrest within a broader geopolitical narrative. The Director General of Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR) accused India of attempting to exploit the situation to destabilise PoJK, reiterating Pakistan’s longstanding position that Kashmir is its “jugular vein.” India has consistently rejected such allegations. Regardless of the veracity of these claims, the invocation of external threats reflects the political sensitivity of the crisis and the state’s attempt to reassert control over the narrative.
JAAC leaders continue to demand postponement of elections until political conditions stabilise, arguing that meaningful participation is impossible while the organisation remains banned and activists face legal proceedings. Reports of detentions, disappearances, and communication blackouts reinforce perceptions of a constrained political environment. Despite official efforts to project normalcy such as inaugurating the military-supported “Kashmiri Baithak” in Muzaffarabad the region remains engulfed in uncertainty, with democratic processes overshadowed by violence, mistrust, and institutional fragility.
Outside the Pakistan High Commission in London more than 5,000 British Kashmiris protested the escalating violence in PoJK, demanding international investigation to stop the deadly military crackdown in Rawalakot, Mirpur and beyond. Lubna, originally from Rawalakot, said she had spoken to her mother only briefly before the communication blackout descended: “There is blood everywhere,” her mother had whispered, a sentence that has haunted her since. Others described relatives trapped without food, electricity or contact, alleging that civilians carrying white flags were being fired upon while transporting the injured.
British-Kashmiri activist and solicitor Ershad Malik challenged Pakistan’s official narrative head-on, arguing that if Islamabad labels the Joint Awami Action Committee “pro-India,” and if a majority of PoJK’s population supports JAAC, then this support itself constitutes a political expression of the people’s will. His question cut sharply through decades of rhetoric: If the majority is dismissed as “pro-India,” then what meaning does Pakistan’s repeated demand for a referendum truly hold? Malik’s critique exposed a fundamental inconsistency, a state calling for self-determination while simultaneously rejecting the political choices of the very people whose will it claims to champion.
Indeed Pakistan has repeatedly accused India of committing atrocities and brutality on the Indian-administered side of Kashmir, deploying this narrative on international platforms as a central pillar of its diplomatic playbook. Yet the events unfolding today in Pakistan-occupied Jammu and Kashmir have sharply exposed the contradictions within that long‑standing script, revealing a reality that many Kashmiris argue no longer aligns with Islamabad’s claims.
In sharp contrast to the turmoil in PoJK, the elections held in India-administered Jammu and Kashmir in September 2024 marked a significant turning point in the region’s political trajectory. After decades of conflict, separatist violence, and low voter participation, the territory recorded its highest turnout in years. The peaceful conduct of the elections was widely viewed as a victory for constitutional processes and a reflection of the population’s desire for stability, development, and democratic engagement.
For decades, anti-national militant groups responsible for severe harm and human rights violations had sought to disrupt elections through intimidation and violence. Their influence had contributed to widespread fear and political alienation. Yet in 2024, the electorate responded with a resounding assertion of agency. Even separatist-leaning leaders contested seats, signaling a shift toward political rather than armed engagement. The candidacy of Engineer Rashid, who campaigned from jail while his sons mobilised support on the ground, became emblematic of this transformation. His electoral success demonstrated the willingness of voters to embrace diverse political voices within a democratic framework.
The elections also unfolded against the backdrop of significant developmental initiatives. Following the abrogation of Jammu and Kashmir’s special status in 2019, the Indian government launched infrastructure and economic projects aimed at integrating the region more closely with national markets. Investments worth hundreds of millions of dollars have been channelled into roads, power projects, tourism infrastructure, and industrial development. For many voters, these initiatives symbolised a tangible shift toward economic opportunity and long-term stability.
The contrast with PoJK is stark. While PoJK’s elections have been overshadowed by violence, allegations of manipulation, and a crisis of legitimacy, India-administered Jammu and Kashmir has witnessed a renewed embrace of electoral politics, institutional participation, and developmental aspirations. The high voter turnout reflects not only improved security conditions but also a broader societal shift toward democratic engagement and peaceful political expression.
______________________________________________________