THE timing was striking. As protests intensified in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK) over governance issues, electoral reforms and allegations of excessive use of force, Islamabad moved to tighten controls over reporting from the region.
New guidelines required journalists working for international outlets to seek government approval before reporting outside Islamabad, Lahore and Karachi. The restrictions also placed additional requirements on local journalists, and contributors working with foreign organisations.
The Committee to Protect Journalists criticised the move, warning that it could further restrict independent reporting from a region already facing intense scrutiny.
The question that follows is unavoidable: why has Pakistan struggled to contain the anger in a territory it officially calls ‘Azad Jammu and Kashmir’?
The answer lies in a long-running debate over autonomy, political representation and the balance of power between Muzaffarabad, Islamabad and Rawalpindi. For decades, critics have argued that Pakistan-occupied Kashmir has democratic institutions on paper but limited independence in practice. The latest unrest has brought those questions back to the centre of the debate.
Why did the protests erupt?
The current crisis did not emerge overnight. The protests were driven by a combination of economic grievances, demands for political reform and anger over the functioning of governance institutions.
What began as opposition to specific policies gradually transformed into a wider movement questioning whether the people of the region have meaningful control over decisions affecting their lives.
The Joint Awami Action Committee (JAAC) became the leading force behind the agitation. Its demands included electoral reforms, reduction in government privileges, economic relief and changes to the political system. One of the most controversial issues was the provision of seats reserved for “refugees from Jammu and Kashmir” in the Legislative Assembly. Protesters argued that the arrangement gives political parties in Islamabad disproportionate influence over local politics.
Pakistan’s government has rejected such criticism, maintaining that the constitutional framework of the region provides representation and democratic rights to its people. But, for many protesters, the issue is whether elections genuinely translate into political power.
Officially, PoK has its own President, Prime Minister, Legislative Assembly and judiciary. The political structure gives the impression of self-rule. However, critics have long argued that crucial decisions involving security, constitutional matters and strategic policy remain heavily influenced by Islamabad.
The 1974 Interim Constitution created the present institutional framework, but it also preserved Pakistan’s supervisory role over several important areas.
This has created what critics describe as a contradiction: a territory with elected institutions but limited authority over the most important questions of governance.
Supporters of Pakistan’s position argue that the special constitutional arrangement exists because of the unresolved Kashmir dispute and that the region enjoys substantial political representation. Opponents contend that democratic institutions cannot be considered fully autonomous when major decisions remain dependent on the federal government.
That debate has remained at the heart of political dissatisfaction in the region.
The Rawalpindi factor
For years, political opponents, analysts and sections of Pakistani civil society have alleged that the army, headquartered in Rawalpindi, exercises decisive influence over strategic affairs in PoK.
The criticism is not simply about the presence of the security setup. It is about whether elected representatives possess enough authority to make independent decisions. The phrase often heard is that governments may sit in Muzaffarabad, but the final word comes from Rawalpindi.
Pakistan has consistently rejected allegations that the military controls political affairs in the region, insisting that its institutions function within a constitutional framework. However, the persistence of these accusations highlights the central fault line: the gap between formal autonomy and perceived real power.
Protest to confrontation
As demonstrations expanded, the confrontation between protesters and authorities became increasingly severe.
Clashes resulted in deaths, injuries and arrests. Communication restrictions and Internet disruptions were imposed. International media organisations and rights groups reported the use of excessive force, while Pakistan defended the response as necessary to maintain public order.
A protester is detained in Lahore as she and others gather in support of JAAC. Reuters
India’s Ministry of External Affairs has claimed that more than 90 persons were killed during the security response and accused Pakistan of suppressing democratic aspirations in the territory. Pakistan disputes the characterisation of events, saying that its security forces were responding to unrest and violence.
With competing claims from both governments, casualty figures and responsibility for individual incidents remain contested. However, the scale of the confrontation has ensured that PoK’s internal issues have received international attention.
Elections deepened crisis
The controversy surrounding elections further intensified the political divide.
The Pakistan Muslim League (Nawaz) emerged as the dominant political force after the polls, but the process was accompanied by allegations of manipulation and criticism from Opposition groups. The Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), which had previously been influential in the region, refused to participate, arguing that conditions were not conducive for a fair contest.
Opposition parties alleged political interference, restrictions on campaigning and pressure on dissenting voices. The government argued that the elections demonstrated the functioning of democratic institutions and pointed to voter participation as evidence of public engagement.
The dispute over the elections reflects a larger problem: in PoK, questions about political legitimacy often begin long before polling day and continue long after the results are announced.
PoK has witnessed repeated periods of political tension, protests and accusations of interference. Every new crisis has exposed similar fault lines: demands for greater autonomy, frustration over governance, and allegations that elected institutions do not possess sufficient authority.
The current protests are therefore not merely about one election or one government decision. These are part of a much longer political conversation about identity, representation and control.
The restrictions on journalists have added another layer to the controversy. When governments limit access to a region experiencing unrest, questions about transparency naturally follow.
India’s position
India has consistently maintained that the entire Jammu and Kashmir, including the territory occupied by Pakistan, is an integral part of India. New Delhi refers to the region as Pakistan-occupied Kashmir and has repeatedly criticised Pakistan’s constitutional and political actions there.
Pakistan maintains that the future of Kashmir must be decided according to the aspirations of the Kashmiri people.
The turmoil in PoK is ultimately about who has the authority to decide the future of the people living there. The history of PoK shows a recurring pattern — protests emerge, governments respond with force, voices are restricted, and the underlying questions remain unanswered. The biggest challenge for Pakistan will not be controlling the story coming out of PoK. It will be addressing why so many people there feel compelled to tell a different one.