By Basharat Hijazi
As Pakistan and the All Parties Hurriyat Conference (APHC) prepare to observe October 27 as Black Day, the bloodshed in Pakistan Occupied Kashmir exposes a glaring contradiction in their political narrative. While Islamabad projects itself as the champion of Kashmiri rights, people living under its control have faced deadly confrontations with security forces while demanding economic relief, political representation and basic freedoms. The question Pakistan and the APHC must answer is simple: who will speak for the Kashmiris killed, injured and silenced in Pakistan Occupied Kashmir? Who will account for their suffering, and who will challenge the authorities responsible for protecting them? Black flags and anti-India slogans cannot conceal the bloodshed, economic distress and political disenchantment that have brought ordinary people onto the streets of PoK.
The latest unrest in Rawalakot, the wider Poonch region, Mirpur and other parts of Pakistan Occupied Kashmir has exposed the widening gulf between Islamabad’s claims of defending Kashmiri rights and the realities experienced by people under its administration. Reports of deadly clashes, the use of live ammunition, arrests, restrictions on communications and allegations of denial of timely medical assistance have raised serious concerns about the conduct of Pakistani and local security authorities.
The reported casualties during the 2026 unrest demand a comprehensive and independently verified account of the deaths, the circumstances surrounding them and the responsibility of those involved. Behind every reported death is a family entitled to know what happened. Behind every injured demonstrator is a person whose demand for economic relief or political reform should not have ended in violence. Families searching for missing relatives deserve answers, not uncertainty. If security personnel used unlawful force, those responsible must face accountability. If the authorities maintain that their actions were justified, they must produce the evidence and submit their conduct to independent scrutiny. Pakistan cannot continue to invoke Kashmiri rights internationally while allowing serious questions about the protection of Kashmiris under its own administration to remain unanswered. Nor can the APHC claim to speak for the aspirations of the Kashmiri people while giving insufficient attention to the suffering of those who challenge Pakistan’s rule. A political narrative that demands accountability from others but avoids examining its own record is incomplete and unconvincing.
Rawalakot became a focal point of the 2026 unrest as residents mobilised under the banner of the Jammu Kashmir Joint Awami Action Committee (JAAC), a grassroots movement demanding economic relief, political reforms and greater accountability.
Its demands included affordable electricity, relief from high flour prices and changes to political arrangements that residents considered unfair. What followed exposed the increasingly confrontational relationship between the authorities and the people they govern. Arrests, restrictions on public gatherings, interruptions to internet services and the designation of the JAAC as a proscribed organisation intensified tensions. Deadly clashes followed, with protesters and security personnel among those reported killed. The deaths during the unrest have raised serious questions about the use of force, the protection of civilians and the authorities’ response to public grievances.
The circumstances of individual deaths must be established through independent investigations, but uncertainty over particular incidents cannot justify ignoring the wider pattern of confrontation and loss of life. The right to life is fundamental, and the use of lethal force against civilians demands the highest level of scrutiny. Even where individual protesters engage in violence, the authorities must distinguish between those responsible and peaceful demonstrators. No government can justify indiscriminate force merely by invoking public order.
The people of Rawalakot deserve to know who authorised the deployment of force, whether the rules governing its use were followed, what happened to the wounded and whether those responsible for unlawful actions will be held accountable. The authorities must preserve evidence, make casualty and detention records available, protect witnesses and allow independent observers to examine the circumstances. The demand is straightforward: establish the truth and deliver justice. The deaths reported in Rawalakot cannot be treated as an unfortunate footnote to Pakistan’s political campaign over Kashmir. They concern the very people in whose name that campaign is conducted.
The unrest has extended beyond Rawalakot. Reports of confrontations and casualties in Mirpur, Muzaffarabad and other areas have illustrated the wider geographical reach of the crisis. Concerns have also been raised about arrests, missing persons, communications restrictions, access to medical care and pressure on activists and their families. Where allegations of excessive force or mistreatment remain disputed, the authorities should facilitate independent inquiries rather than obstruct scrutiny.
Where individuals are accused of criminal offences, they must be afforded due process. And where people have disappeared, their whereabouts must be established without delay. The scale of the unrest raises a larger question about governance in Pakistan Occupied Kashmir. Why have grievances over essential services and political representation repeatedly escalated into deadly confrontations? Why have the authorities struggled to establish public confidence? Why have residents felt compelled to organise mass protests to make their demands heard? These are questions that Pakistan’s political establishment must confront directly.
It cannot expect the population to accept official assurances while families continue to seek answers about deaths and disappearances. The response to public dissatisfaction should be dialogue, transparent administration and meaningful political reform. Treating grassroots movements primarily as security threats risks deepening the distrust that produced the protests in the first place. Pakistan’s handling of the crisis will ultimately be judged by whether it protects the lives and rights of ordinary residents, not by how effectively it controls the political narrative surrounding the territory.
The current crisis follows the deadly protests of May 2024, when thousands of residents of Pakistan Occupied Kashmir mobilised over electricity tariffs, flour prices and privileges enjoyed by sections of the political establishment. The demonstrations reflected the daily economic pressures confronting ordinary households. Residents demanded affordable essential commodities and a fairer distribution of public benefits. The protests escalated into violent confrontations between demonstrators and security personnel, leaving at least four people dead, including a police officer, and many others injured. The government eventually announced concessions on electricity and flour prices.
Yet the underlying issues were not confined to the cost of two essential commodities. They involved public confidence in the administration, the accountability of officials and the ability of residents to secure meaningful responses to their grievances. The events of 2024 should have served as a turning point. Pakistan’s authorities had an opportunity to establish permanent mechanisms for resolving disputes, improve the transparency of public expenditure, review official privileges and ensure that demonstrations could take place without unnecessary violence.
Instead, further unrest followed. The recurrence of deadly confrontations in 2026 raises serious questions about whether the lessons of 2024 were learned or whether the immediate crisis was merely postponed. When people repeatedly take to the streets over the same fundamental issues, the problem cannot be dismissed as a temporary disturbance. It points towards a deeper failure to address public concerns through institutions that residents trust. The families of those killed in 2024 deserve justice just as much as the families affected by the latest unrest. Their suffering must not be forgotten simply because another political crisis has taken centre stage.
For decades, Pakistan has presented itself as a champion of the Kashmiri cause, invoking self-determination and political rights while making the dispute with India a central feature of its foreign policy. It has also supported the APHC’s political campaign and used international platforms to advance its position on Jammu and Kashmir. But Pakistan’s claim to represent Kashmiri aspirations cannot be assessed solely through speeches delivered abroad.
It must also be examined in light of the conditions under which people live in Pakistan Occupied Kashmir. Residents want affordable electricity, reasonably priced food, quality education, functioning hospitals, employment opportunities, reliable infrastructure and transparent administration. They want political representatives who answer to them and institutions that protect their rights. They also want the freedom to criticise the authorities without fearing arrest or violence. These are not peripheral demands. They are the everyday concerns of people whose future should be determined by their own needs and aspirations.
The contradiction is stark: Pakistan invokes Kashmiri rights while residents of PoK have repeatedly protested against the authorities governing them. The demands for political reform and economic relief reveal that the people of the territory have grievances that cannot be answered by references to the wider Kashmir dispute. Self-determination cannot be reduced to a geopolitical slogan. It must include the right of people to express their views, organise peacefully, question public policy and hold their representatives accountable. Pakistan must recognise that the people of PoK are not merely instruments in its political campaign. Their interests cannot be subordinated indefinitely to Islamabad’s strategic calculations.
The economic grievances driving the protests are among the clearest indications of the distance between official promises and people’s lived experiences. High electricity costs place pressure on households, traders and small businesses. Expensive flour and other essential commodities reduce the money available for education, healthcare and other necessities.
Limited employment opportunities leave young people uncertain about their future, while entrepreneurs face obstacles to investment and expansion. These hardships become more difficult to accept when residents believe that political elites enjoy privileges that ordinary families cannot afford. The resulting resentment is not merely economic; it is also about fairness, accountability and the distribution of public resources. A government that genuinely prioritises its people would focus on affordable essential services, transparent recruitment, accountable public spending and sustained investment in education, healthcare and employment generation.
It would encourage local enterprise, strengthen tourism and agriculture, and create opportunities for young people to build secure livelihoods. Instead, when economic demands repeatedly lead to mass mobilisation and confrontations, the authorities must examine why routine administrative mechanisms have failed. The people of Pakistan Occupied Kashmir should not have to risk their lives to make their government listen. Nor should they have to accept temporary concessions in place of lasting reforms. The economic future of PoK must be shaped around the needs of its residents rather than the political convenience of those who govern it.
The controversy surrounding political representation has added another dimension to the crisis. The JAAC and its supporters have challenged the arrangement under which 12 seats in the regional legislature are reserved for refugees from Jammu and Kashmir living elsewhere in Pakistan. Critics argue that the system gives people outside the territory an influence over its political affairs that should be reconsidered. The debate raises an important question: do the existing arrangements adequately reflect the interests of people who live in Pakistan Occupied Kashmir and experience the consequences of its governance? Political institutions derive credibility from their responsiveness to the people they represent.
If residents believe that their voices are being diluted or that major decisions are made elsewhere, public confidence will inevitably suffer. The authorities should address these concerns through open debate, legal scrutiny and meaningful engagement with local representatives and grassroots organisations. Political reform must not be treated as a threat merely because it challenges established arrangements. The people of PoK must be able to discuss their constitutional and political future freely. Their views cannot be presumed, scripted or permanently represented by an organisation or government claiming to speak on their behalf. If Pakistan insists that the political aspirations of Kashmiris deserve international attention, it must also respect the aspirations expressed by people under its own administration.
The APHC’s decision to observe October 27 as Black Day raises an unavoidable question about the consistency of its advocacy. While its leaders repeatedly condemn India and invoke Kashmiri suffering, what position have they taken on the deaths of protesters in Rawalakot and other parts of Pakistan Occupied Kashmir? Where are the equally forceful demands for accountability? Where is the campaign for families seeking answers about their relatives? Where is the insistence that residents of PoK must be free to challenge their authorities and demand political reforms? If the APHC claims to represent Kashmiri aspirations, it cannot ignore the people whose suffering complicates its political narrative.
The right to life cannot depend on the identity of the government responsible. Freedom of expression cannot be defended selectively. And the demand for political rights cannot lose its importance when directed at Pakistan. The APHC should call for independent investigations into the reported killings, the publication of credible casualty records, the protection of journalists and witnesses, and the release or lawful processing of those detained arbitrarily.
It should demand answers about missing persons and insist that peaceful assembly be protected. It should also make clear whether its understanding of self-determination includes the right of people in PoK to question Pakistan’s policies and demand changes to the political arrangements under which they live. An organisation’s credibility depends on the consistency of its principles. It cannot convincingly claim to champion an entire population while giving inadequate attention to those who are suffering under the authority of its political ally. The APHC must recognise that the people of PoK are not merely a supporting cast in a larger political struggle. They have their own rights, needs and aspirations, and those aspirations deserve to be heard in their own right.
Pakistan’s record in Jammu and Kashmir extends beyond the administration of PoK. India has repeatedly accused Pakistan’s military and intelligence establishment of supporting, training, funding or facilitating terrorist groups responsible for violence in Jammu and Kashmir. Islamabad has denied supporting terrorism and rejected India’s allegations. Nevertheless, the long history of cross-border militancy and attacks attributed to Pakistan-based terrorist organisations has made the issue central to India’s security concerns. The consequences of terrorism have been borne by civilians, security personnel, political workers and families across Jammu and Kashmir.
Terrorist violence has claimed lives, disrupted livelihoods, spread fear and obstructed the region’s social and economic progress. The people of Jammu and Kashmir have a right to live without the threat of terrorism, coercion or violence imposed in pursuit of political objectives. No cause can justify attacks on civilians or the use of terror as an instrument of state policy. Pakistan must address credible allegations concerning support for terrorist organisations operating against India and account for the treatment of people living under its own control in PoK.
A state cannot convincingly present itself as a protector of Kashmiri rights while serious questions persist about its regional security policies and the protection of its own residents. The people of PoK deserve development, stability and democratic freedoms, not an existence shaped by geopolitical rivalry, economic distress and confrontations with the authorities. Their territory should not be treated merely as a strategic asset or a platform for advancing Pakistan’s political claims. The future of the region must be judged by the safety, dignity and opportunities available to its people.
Pakistan’s continued control over Pakistan Occupied Kashmir remains central to India’s position that the territory must ultimately be reclaimed from illegal occupation. The political future of the territory cannot be separated from the rights and aspirations of the people who live there. Pakistan’s approach has repeatedly placed its strategic interests and political narrative at the forefront.
The grievances of PoK residents over economic hardship, representation and accountability demonstrate that the people themselves must not be reduced to instruments of a larger contest. The reported killings during protests have made the human consequences of this approach particularly visible. When residents demanding basic rights face deadly confrontations, the question is no longer merely about political rhetoric. It is about whether the authorities recognise the lives and aspirations of the people they govern. Pakistan must stop treating public dissatisfaction as a challenge to be contained and begin addressing the reasons behind it.
It must ensure that alleged unlawful killings are investigated, that those responsible are held accountable and that residents can pursue political and economic reforms without fear. The APHC, too, must confront the gap between its claims to represent Kashmiri aspirations and its response to the suffering of people under Pakistani control. If it is committed to the rights of Kashmiris, it should not remain silent when those rights are challenged in PoK. No amount of political messaging can substitute for justice, accountability and respect for the people.
October 27, 1947, remains a defining date in the political history of Jammu and Kashmir. Pakistan and the APHC observe it as Black Day, using the occasion to condemn India’s position and renew their political campaign. But an annual observance cannot erase the realities confronting people in Pakistan Occupied Kashmir.
The deaths reported during the 2026 unrest, the protests of 2024 and the repeated demands for economic relief and political reform have raised questions that Pakistan cannot avoid. Who will answer for the people killed during the protests? Who will ensure that families receive the truth about their loved ones? Who will investigate allegations of unlawful force and arbitrary detention? Who will protect the right of residents to demand affordable necessities, fair representation and accountable government? Pakistan must answer these questions through action, not rhetoric.
It must establish the facts surrounding the reported deaths, ensure independent investigations, provide remedies to affected families and undertake reforms that address the underlying grievances. The APHC must also demonstrate that its concern for Kashmiri rights extends to the people of PoK when their demands challenge Pakistan’s authority. It cannot claim to represent the aspirations of Kashmiris while overlooking the suffering of those living under Pakistani control.
The people of PoK deserve more than black flags and symbolic declarations of solidarity. They deserve justice for the dead, protection for the living, economic opportunities for their children and political institutions that respond to their needs. Pakistan’s conduct in PoK will ultimately be judged not by its speeches against India but by the lives of the people it governs. Its credibility will depend on whether it ends the cycle of confrontation, investigates the deaths and allows residents to exercise their rights without fear.
The bloodshed in Pakistan Occupied Kashmir is a reminder that a government cannot claim to champion a people while failing to answer for their suffering. As Pakistan and the APHC prepare to observe October 27, the most important question is not how many black flags will be raised or how loudly India will be condemned. It is whether Pakistan will finally answer the families of those killed in PoK, confront its record of repression and respect the aspirations of the people whose cause it claims to champion. Until then, the black flags of October 27 will remain overshadowed by the bloodshed Pakistan cannot conceal and the promises it has yet to fulfil.
