Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK) is in the grip of a deepening crisis, with 1,500 civilians arrested under anti-terror laws and at least 30 people killed after security forces opened fire on protesters in Rawalakot on 7 and 8 June. Pakistan's military-directed crackdown — reportedly ordered by Field Marshal Asim Munir — has drawn sharp scrutiny not only for its brutality but for the conspicuous silence it has exposed among global human rights organisations.

How the Crisis Unfolded

The unrest was triggered by the Pakistani establishment's repeated failure to honour promises of economic and political reform in the region. The Joint Awami Action Committee (JAAC) — a coalition of traders, lawyers, and civil society members — had been pressing for economic relief, political sovereignty, and an end to elite administrative privileges. Initial assurances of dialogue gave way to a dramatic reversal: on 5 June, the state formally banned the JAAC under anti-terrorism legislation, effectively designating civilian organisers as enemies of the state overnight.

In the days that followed, internet and mobile services were suspended across PoK, and local television channels were taken off air. The state police were replaced by heavy contingents of Punjab Rangers, who opened fire on demonstrators in Rawalakot on 7 and 8 June, killing 30 civilians according to officials. Reports indicate that the bodies of those killed have not been returned to their families, and that women and children were among those fired upon.

The Selective Silence of Rights Organisations

What has drawn particular attention is the near-total absence of condemnation from international human rights bodies and advocacy groups — many of which have historically been vocal on matters concerning Jammu and Kashmir. According to officials, the same organisations that loudly protested the abrogation of Article 370 and counterterrorism operations in Jammu and Kashmir have offered no solidarity and no human rights reporting on the PoK crisis.

Disinfo Lab, a research group that investigates information warfare and psychological operations, raised this contradiction in a series of posts on X. The group noted that advocacy handles such as @standwithkashmir and @wka_kashmir continued to post anti-India content through June, even as deaths in PoK were being documented, without a single post on the Rawalakot killings.

Organisations including the Kashmir Institute of International Relations — which maintains offices in PoK — as well as Western entities linked to the Ghulam Nabi Fai network, the Kashmiri American Council, Pakistan House, and the Centre for Strategic and Contemporary Research also issued no statements on the June violence, according to Disinfo Lab.

According to officials, these entities are built around a narrative framework designed to challenge Indian sovereignty while portraying Pakistan as a champion of human rights in Jammu and Kashmir. Speaking out on PoK, officials argue, would undermine the premise of their lobbying and endanger their support structures.

Political Figures Deflect, Not Condemn

Prominent Kashmiri-origin political figures, rather than condemning the violence, reportedly moved to delegitimise the protesters. Mushaal Hussein Malik, a prominent political figure and former adviser to the Pakistani government, broke her silence — not to condemn the civilian killings in Rawalakot, but to call on the JAAC to disband immediately. She characterised the protests as a political conspiracy aimed at destabilising the region. Notably, none of these figures are reported to have appealed to Field Marshal Asim Munir to halt the crackdown.

What Comes Next

The JAAC has reportedly continued to appeal to the international community and human rights bodies, but officials say the response has been silence. With internet blackouts limiting information flow out of the region, independent verification of the full scale of the crackdown remains difficult. The crisis shows no signs of resolution, as neither the protesters nor the Pakistani establishment appear willing to stand down. How long the international community can sustain this silence — and whether it will ultimately prove untenable — remains the defining question.