Opinion | Night Protests in POK A Crisis of Trust and Pakistan’s Accountability Deficit

The continuing protests in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK) have exposed a crisis that can no longer be dismissed as a temporary dispute over electricity tariffs, wheat prices or administrative arrangements. What is unfolding across Rawalakot, Poonch, Sudhnoti and other parts of PoK is increasingly a confrontation between an increasingly assertive local population and a political system whose credibility has been weakened by prolonged restrictions, arrests, communications shutdowns and the use of force.The most striking feature of the present situation is its persistence. By mid-September, protests in Rawalakot and adjoining areas had continued for around 100 days. The Human Rights Council of PoJK warned that prolonged unrest was deepening uncertainty and public mistrust and called for meaningful dialogue. The darkness of the night has acquired a symbolic meaning in this crisis. Demonstrations, sit-ins and gatherings continuing after sunset reflect a population unwilling to allow its grievances to disappear with the closing of government offices. For many protesters, the issue is no longer simply the price of electricity or flour. It is about political representation, accountability, civil liberties and the question of how long Pakistan can govern a disputed territory through administrative control while claiming that its people enjoy meaningful political rights.The crisis reached a particularly dangerous stage in June when Pakistan banned the Joint Awami Action Committee under anti-terrorism legislation. The organisation had emerged as a platform of traders, transporters, students, lawyers, activists and other sections of civil society. The United Nations subsequently expressed concern that criminalising a civil-society organisation and restricting peaceful gatherings could infringe upon freedom of expression, association and peaceful assembly. The UN also called for due process for detained activists and restoration of full internet access.The transformation of a civil-rights movement into an issue under anti-terrorism law is perhaps one of the most consequential developments in PoK this year. It raises an obvious question: when citizens raise demands relating to representation, prices, governance and accountability, does Pakistan intend to answer those demands politically or treat dissent itself as a security threat?

The violence that followed made the situation still more serious. Reuters reported that at least 24 people, including civilians and police officers, had been killed during nearly two weeks of unrest by June 19, while more than 500 people had been detained. In July, the United Nations called for prompt, thorough and impartial investigations into all deaths, whether involving protesters or security personnel. The UN also called for meaningful and inclusive political dialogue to address the underlying grievances. These calls have particular significance because the information environment in PoK has itself become part of the controversy.Internet and mobile services have remained severely restricted for more than 100 days. Indian media reports, citing independent internet-monitoring information, have documented the continuing disruption to banking, education, business and ordinary communication even after the elections and formation of a new government.

A government may impose temporary restrictions during an exceptional security emergency. But when such restrictions continue for months, they create an entirely different problem. Families struggle to communicate, students lose access to educational resources, businesses suffer and journalists face greater difficulty verifying events. More importantly, a communications blackout creates an information vacuum in which competing claims become almost impossible for ordinary citizens to independently assess.This is precisely why Pakistan’s handling of PoK deserves greater international scrutiny.The international response so far has not been entirely silent. The UN human-rights leadership has publicly called for investigations and dialogue. The United Kingdom has also raised the situation directly with Pakistan’s Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar. In a written parliamentary response on September 15, the British government said it remained concerned about loss of life, arrests and continuing communications restrictions and urged restraint, respect for human rights and peaceful dialogue.

That engagement should not stop at expressions of concern.Countries that regularly speak about human rights, democratic freedoms and protection of civilians have a legitimate responsibility to ask Pakistan difficult questions about PoK. They should seek credible information about deaths during protests, demand transparent legal proceedings for detainees, encourage unrestricted humanitarian and journalistic access, and press for restoration of communications. Where credible allegations of unlawful use of force exist, independent investigation should be supported rather than allowing the passage of time to bury the evidence.At the same time, accountability should apply to every side. Allegations that protesters attacked security personnel or public property must also be investigated through law and due process. The Pakistani authorities have repeatedly presented the unrest as a threat to public order and security. That position deserves examination alongside the allegations made by protesters and rights organisations. Security concerns cannot automatically extinguish fundamental rights, just as the existence of legitimate grievances cannot provide immunity for violence.The deeper problem, however, lies in the political structure surrounding PoK.The controversy over the twelve seats reserved for refugees living outside the territory became one of the principal triggers of the 2026 confrontation. Protest leaders argued that these seats allow political forces based in Pakistan to exercise disproportionate influence over the formation of governments in PoK. Reuters reported that the dispute over these seats was closely connected to the wider political confrontation, while the authorities defended the existing arrangement. This controversy cannot simply be separated from the broader question of Pakistan’s relationship with PoK. If Islamabad genuinely believes that the political system reflects the will of the people of the territory, then greater transparency, stronger local representation and independent institutions should not be threatening propositions.

Instead, the response has increasingly been associated with bans, arrests, communications restrictions and the deployment of security forces. That approach risks reinforcing precisely the mistrust that produced the protests in the first place.The continuing demonstrations therefore represent more than another episode of unrest in Pakistan’s political history. They expose the distance between official claims of democratic governance and the experience described by sections of the population living under Pakistan’s control.For India, developments in PoK also carry a wider significance. Pakistan’s persistent international campaign on human rights in Jammu and Kashmir cannot be examined in isolation from conditions in the territory under its own control. The developments of 2026 have created a substantial body of contemporary evidence requiring the international community to examine governance, political participation, civil liberties and accountability on the Pakistani side of the Line of Control with the same seriousness with which it examines allegations elsewhere.The people of PoK do not need their grievances to be converted into another geopolitical slogan. They need institutions capable of listening to them.

The international community, meanwhile, should not wait for another escalation before acting. The UN’s call for impartial investigations, Britain’s diplomatic representations and continuing attention from human-rights organisations provide a starting point. What is required now is sustained scrutiny rather than episodic statements.Pakistan can suppress a demonstration for a night, restrict communication for a month or arrest activists under a security law. But none of these measures can permanently remove the grievances that produced the movement.The night protests of PoK therefore carry a message that Islamabad cannot indefinitely ignore: public anger has moved beyond individual economic demands and has become a question of political trust, dignity and accountability.

The real test for Pakistan is not whether it can restore order on the streets. It is whether it can create enough political space for the people of Pakistan-occupied Kashmir to demand their rights without being treated as a security problem.And the real test for the international community is whether its commitment to human rights extends beyond convenient geopolitical boundaries.

Syedjahanzeeb2@gmail.com