By Syed Shamim Akhtar
The ongoing tensions surrounding Azad Jammu and Kashmir underscore a familiar but urgent truth: the narrative of the region continues to be contested, and international law remains an essential reference point for justice and accountability. Pakistan has once again rejected India’s repeated attempts to manipulate this narrative, calling on New Delhi to adhere to both international law and United Nations resolutions. In a statement from the Foreign Office, the spokesperson emphasized that instead of levelling unfounded accusations, India should acknowledge its responsibilities under the UN Charter, respect the rights of the people of Azad Jammu and Kashmir, and refrain from interfering in Pakistan’s internal affairs.
Pakistan reaffirmed its commitment to protecting the dignity, political and civil rights, and social and economic development of Azad Kashmir’s residents—an approach markedly different from the methods employed by Indian authorities in the region it administers. The contrast between Azad Kashmir and Indian-administered Kashmir could not be starker. Pakistan highlights the democratic participation of Azad Kashmir’s residents, where elected representatives exercise political agency within the framework of lawful governance. In India-administered Kashmir, however, the reality is far more troubling. Civil liberties are tightly curtailed, political dissent is met with repression, and the use of force against civilians has become commonplace.
A recent and deeply troubling example occurred in Srinagar, where Indian authorities seized the home of the late Kashmiri leader Syed Ali Geelani. Geelani, who passed away under house arrest in September 2021, was a prominent voice in the Kashmiri struggle for autonomy. His widow, now in her eighties, was still residing in the property when it was taken, exemplifying a continuing pattern of intimidation and harassment directed at those connected to Kashmir’s political history. Such actions are emblematic of a broader strategy of repression, including forced disappearances, curbs on free expression, and systematic violations of human rights targeting ordinary citizens.
India’s persistent efforts to malign Pakistan on the international stage have been a recurring feature of its foreign policy approach. From attacks like Pulwama and Pathankot to more sensational claims reminiscent of Mumbai-style false-flag operations, India has sought to divert global attention from its own transgressions in Kashmir. Its recent rhetoric concerning Azad Kashmir appears to follow the same pattern: projecting an image of Pakistan as destabilizing while ignoring its own role in perpetuating violence and repression. Yet, Pakistan has consistently acted with responsibility and restraint. The government’s swift response to protests in Azad Kashmir, with Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif directing a joint action committee to engage demonstrators and address their concerns, illustrates a commitment to peaceful resolution and participatory governance.
Unlike India, which often responds with brute force, Pakistan’s approach demonstrates that addressing grievances through dialogue and institutional mechanisms is both possible and effective. The hypocrisy in India’s position is glaring. While accusing Pakistan of interference, India continues to enforce a regime of state-sponsored violence in its administered territories. The use of coercion, curtailment of civil liberties, and targeted suppression of political activists has become a defining characteristic of governance in the Valley. The house seizure of Geelani’s widow, arbitrary detentions, and the frequent use of security forces to quell dissent reflect a system in which the exercise of basic rights is not tolerated, and the voices of ordinary citizens are systematically silenced.
Such actions not only contravene the spirit of international law but also contravene the United Nations resolutions designed to protect the rights and aspirations of the Kashmiri people. This pattern of behavior has consequences beyond Kashmir’s borders. It undermines India’s credibility in the international arena and fuels the very tensions it claims to de-escalate. By focusing on narratives that accuse Pakistan of interference, New Delhi deflects attention from the very real suffering experienced by its own citizens in Kashmir. The contrast with Azad Kashmir, where political participation, public accountability, and protection of civil rights are emphasized, is striking. Pakistan’s governance model in the region demonstrates that it is possible to maintain security while respecting fundamental freedoms—a lesson that India’s approach seems to neglect.
(The writer has diverse in knowledge and has a good omen in politics, can be reached at news@metro-morning.com)
