THE recent unrest in Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK) has exposed internal vulnerabilities that risk undermining Pakistan’s position in the broader Kashmir dispute. At a time when international attention to Kashmir is already limited, continued instability in AJK threatens to shift focus away from the unresolved status of the region toward governance, political management and public trust, developments that could further complicate Pakistan’s diplomatic narrative. The Kashmir dispute remains one of the world’s longest unresolved conflicts, centred on identity, sovereignty and self-determination. Yet as geopolitical priorities evolve and new crises dominate attention, Kashmir has steadily receded from the diplomatic agenda. In this environment, preserving political credibility and institutional resilience on our side becomes even more important.
As a Kashmiri by birth, a proud Pakistani and a former soldier with decades long experience in security and intelligence affairs, I view these developments with concern. Experience has shown that governance deficiencies and instability, if unaddressed, can evolve into vulnerabilities that others may exploit. This reflection is not about blame but about lessons to prevent recurrence. Pakistan’s political history shows a recurring pattern: manageable issues escalate when legitimate grievances are not addressed in time. Institutional constraints, political expediency and weak consultation often allow tensions to grow until they become harder to resolve.
The situation in AJK should not be viewed in isolation. It reflects governance and socio-economic challenges, alongside communication gaps that deserve sustained attention. The grievances that surfaced did not emerge overnight; they reflect accumulated perceptions that concerns were not being adequately heard through institutional channels. This episode reminds me of an incident about two decades ago, which I personally witnessed during my days in intelligence, where a communication gap led to a serious misreading of ground realities. Despite subsequent efforts to contain the situation, events escalated, driven by competing interests and the country ultimately paid a heavy price. The details are not important here, but the lesson remains clear: when decision-making loses touch with ground realities, manageable situations can spiral out of control.
In AJK, it is important to distinguish governance concerns from political allegiance. Criticism of administrative structures should not be misconstrued as weakening commitment to Pakistan. The people of AJK have a long history of sacrifice and attachment to the state, which they take as their religious obligation. At the heart of the issue lies ambiguity in AJK’s governance framework. Neither fully integrated nor entirely autonomous, the region operates under arrangements many perceive as unclear. The concern is not allegiance but political ownership, representation and participation. Politics pursued at the expense of cohesion carries long-term costs.
These ambiguities have periodically fuelled friction. Instead of addressing them through sustained dialogue and reform, challenges have often been managed through short-term measures, leaving mistrust and exclusion in their wake. Political legitimacy is not secured only through constitutional authority; it is strengthened when citizens feel institutions are responsive and participatory. In sensitive regions, public confidence becomes a national security asset. Dismissing grievances as externally driven or treating dissent as hostility can be counterproductive. Local communities must also recognize that peaceful engagement remains the most effective path to progress and take care to prevent foreign influence from penetrating their domestic political and administrative structures. Any miscalculation by either side could have far more severe consequences than we might expect.
Maintaining order is a state responsibility, but grievances must be addressed through dialogue before enforcement becomes primary. The recent crisis management appears to have fallen short of this balance. The deployment of Rangers, while operationally may be justified, it may also have contributed to heightened tensions due to their limited awareness of local sensitivities. Even well-intentioned measures can have unintended consequences without contextual understanding. While the situation may stabilise, its psychological and political effects will endure. An honest assessment is necessary, not for blame but for learning.
At a time when progress on Kashmir issue appears distant, governance becomes even more critical. Priorities include strengthening consultation, improving grievance mechanisms, encouraging structured dialogue and enhancing administrative effectiveness. Preventive governance should remain central. Where law-and-order measures are required, local civil administration and policing must lead, supported by clear communication of roles and intent. While detailed reforms may be considered by the relevant authorities as and where deemed appropriate, I do not regard this article as a suitable or competent platform for that purpose. A key lesson from decades in intelligence work is that decisions grounded in assumptions rather than ground realities are often counterproductive and, if required, corrective action is best undertaken through proper institutional channels.
After retirement, at an international security seminar, a senior professional once asked me what most contributed to Western setbacks in our region. I replied, “The gap between ground realities and decision-making at the top.” He agreed, saying, “I think you are right.” That exchange remains relevant. Policies succeed when rooted in lived realities. When assumptions replace understanding, outcomes diverge sharply from intent. Ultimately, the future of the Kashmir cause depends not only on developments across the Line of Control but also on governance quality, political maturity and institutional trust on our side. Political causes gain strength when those who advocate them govern effectively, accommodate dissent and maintain public confidence.
History shows that international distraction creates opportunities for external actors. The prevailing global turmoil, particularly the crisis in our region, illustrates this. The best defence is internal cohesion, responsive governance and public trust. The recent crisis in AJK should, therefore, be seen not only as a law-and-order challenge but as a strategic cautionary. National objectives and good governance are inseparable. No external adversary can exploit weaknesses that do not already exist. The responsibility is clear: strengthen the foundations at home so that the causes we champion abroad rest on credibility, resilience and unity.
—The writer, based in Dubai, is Security Analyst and published author of the book ‘Caught in the Crossfire’.
