Opinion | Rawalakot Unrest: Election Boycott and state atrocities

A durable solution lies not in suppressing dissent but in addressing legitimate public concerns through transparent governance, constitutional dialogue and respect for democratic freedoms.

The recent clashes in Rawalakot during the election boycott in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK) have brought renewed attention to the POK’s volatile political landscape and the growing public discontent over governance and democratic representation. What was expected to be an electoral exercise instead witnessed violent confrontations between protesters and security forces, prompting fresh debate over civil liberties, electoral legitimacy, and the handling of dissent.Rawalakot, located in the Poonch region of Pakistan-occupied Kashmir, emerged as the epicentre of demonstrations led by the Jammu Kashmir Joint Awami Action Committee (JAAC), a movement that has, over the past two years, evolved from demanding economic relief to raising broader concerns about governance and political accountability. The committee called for a boycott of the elections, arguing that the prevailing electoral framework does not adequately reflect the aspirations of the local population.

On polling day, thousands of protesters reportedly gathered in Rawalakot to oppose the electoral process. Security personnel moved to prevent demonstrators from advancing towards other districts, leading to clashes that quickly escalated. Videos circulating on social media showed large crowds confronting security forces amid heavy deployment. Protest organisers alleged that police resorted to tear gas, baton charges and, in some instances, live ammunition to disperse demonstrators. Pakistani authorities, while acknowledging clashes and injuries, disputed several of these allegations and maintained that the measures taken were necessary to preserve law and order. Independent verification of all claims remains difficult because of restrictions on access and conflicting accounts from the ground.The unrest did not arise overnight. During the past two years, Pakistan-occupied Kashmir has witnessed repeated protests over soaring electricity tariffs, inflation, shortages of essential commodities and demands for better governance. Earlier demonstrations compelled the authorities to announce economic relief measures, yet many activists argued that the underlying political and constitutional grievances remained unresolved. The present election boycott therefore represents a continuation of broader public dissatisfaction rather than an isolated protest.

A major issue raised by protesters concerns the constitutional structure of Pakistan-occupied Kashmir and the existence of reserved legislative seats for refugees residing in different parts of Pakistan. Critics argue that these seats provide Islamabad with significant influence over the political process and government formation in the territory. They contend that such arrangements dilute the political voice of residents living within Pakistan-occupied Kashmir itself. Pakistani authorities reject these allegations and maintain that the constitutional framework is lawful and representative.The decision to impose restrictions on protest activities and take action against movement leaders has further intensified tensions. Civil society groups and political activists have alleged arbitrary arrests, restrictions on peaceful assembly and excessive use of force during demonstrations. These allegations deserve transparent and impartial investigation. Respect for peaceful protest and due process remains an essential component of democratic governance, irrespective of political differences.

Reports indicating low voter turnout in several constituencies have also fuelled debate over the credibility of the electoral process. While official turnout figures may differ from estimates circulated by protest groups and independent observers, the widespread boycott campaign itself reflects a significant level of political alienation among sections of the local population. Elections derive their strength not merely from the conduct of polling but from public confidence that the process is inclusive, transparent and genuinely representative.The Rawalakot clashes have also drawn attention from regional observers because Pakistan has consistently projected Pakistan-occupied Kashmir as enjoying democratic institutions and representative governance. Images of confrontations between protesters and security personnel inevitably raise questions about the space available for peaceful dissent. Democracies are judged not only by the conduct of elections but also by how governments respond to criticism and public protest.

Political stability cannot rest solely upon security measures. History demonstrates that prolonged reliance on force to manage public grievances often deepens mistrust between citizens and institutions. Sustainable peace requires dialogue, accountability and credible mechanisms through which people can express their concerns without fear of violence or repression. Allegations of excessive force, if established through impartial inquiry, would warrant accountability in accordance with the rule of law.The developments in Rawalakot also highlight the importance of protecting fundamental freedoms, including the right to peaceful assembly, freedom of expression and political participation. These principles are recognised under international human rights standards and are essential for maintaining public confidence in any democratic process. At the same time, protesters also bear responsibility to conduct demonstrations peacefully and avoid violence against public officials or property.

The events unfolding in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir carry significance beyond the region itself. They underscore the continuing challenges associated with governance, political representation and public trust. Whether the current unrest leads to meaningful political engagement or further confrontation will depend largely on the willingness of all stakeholders to pursue dialogue over coercion.The clashes in Rawalakot should therefore not be viewed merely as a law-and-order incident. They represent a manifestation of deeper political and institutional questions that have remained unresolved for years. A durable solution lies not in suppressing dissent but in addressing legitimate public concerns through transparent governance, constitutional dialogue and respect for democratic freedoms.As Pakistan-occupied Kashmir moves beyond this phase of elections, the need for accountability, political inclusiveness and protection of civil liberties has become more pressing than ever. Lasting stability cannot be achieved through force alone. It can only emerge from institutions that command the confidence of the people they seek to govern and from a political process that allows peaceful dissent to be heard rather than suppressed.

syedjahanzeeb2@gmail.com