Massive protests in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK) have laid bare a deepening governance crisis, with a new report arguing that Islamabad's repeated use of coercive measures against its own population contradicts its long-standing claim of being the custodian of Kashmiri interests. The findings, published in One World Outlook, describe a political order built on structural failures rather than isolated unrest.

More Than a Periodic Flare-Up

According to the report, the unrest in PoK reflects a political system founded on 'managed representation, coercive policing, and a long habit of treating local grievances as a security problem rather than a governance failure.' What began as a dispute over reserved assembly seats has since expanded into a broader question of whether the region's residents are treated as rights-bearing citizens or as subjects expected to comply without dissent.

The report characterises the current crisis not as an isolated episode but as the culmination of longstanding failures — authorities' inability to ensure affordable essential services, responsive governance, and meaningful political representation for the people of PoK.

The Crackdown on JAAC

The report singles out the move against the Joint Awami Action Committee (JAAC) as particularly revealing. Rather than addressing the grievances that fuelled the protest movement, authorities opted to suppress it. 'Banning a protest movement does not solve its grievances; it only narrows the space for peaceful bargaining and raises the political cost of compromise,' the report noted.

When demands centred on price relief, governance reform, and opposition to reserved-seat manipulation are framed as a security threat, the report argues, authorities effectively signal that they 'have no better answer than force.'

Reserved Seats and Captured Institutions

Local activists, according to the report, maintain that reserved assembly seats are used by Pakistan's mainstream political parties to shape PoK's political landscape — diminishing the influence of local inhabitants over their own affairs. The report cautions against dismissing this as narrow factionalism.

'A legislature that is partly shaped by political actors outside the territory is not fully accountable to the people who bear the consequences of its decisions. If the region's residents believe that their assembly is an instrument for external influence, then every policy failure, every subsidy shortfall, and every policing excess will be interpreted through the lens of captured institutions,' the report stated.

Flour, Electricity, and the Economics of Survival

The report stresses that the recurring flashpoints in PoK are not abstract constitutional disputes — they are rooted in the everyday economics of survival. Essentials such as flour and electricity have repeatedly become sources of public anger as authorities struggle to supply them at prices ordinary residents can afford.

When emergency relief is extended only after deadly protests, the report argues, authorities are effectively conceding that their earlier approach was 'unsustainable.' It describes this pattern as 'the classic authoritarian bargain in miniature: cheap legitimacy through selective patronage, followed by coercion when the bill comes due.'

Why the Cycle Keeps Repeating

The report is unambiguous on why these episodes recur: 'Protesters may be imperfect, sometimes unruly and at times violent, but the underlying grievance is legitimate when an impoverished population sees elite privilege protected while its own cost of living rises.' Without structural reforms addressing both political representation and basic service delivery, analysts warn, the cycle of protest and crackdown is likely to continue.