NEW DELHI — India has escalated its diplomatic offensive against Pakistan, publicly blaming Islamabad for fueling unrest in Pakistan-occupied Jammu and Kashmir (PoJK) and demanding international accountability for what it calls “egregious abuses and misdeeds.” The Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) framed the protests as a direct consequence of Pakistan’s “decades-long exploitation” of the region’s resources and people, marking a sharp rhetorical shift in New Delhi’s approach to the disputed territory.
In a statement to reporters on Thursday, MEA spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal accused Pakistan of systemic neglect and economic extraction in PoJK, where demonstrators have been protesting against alleged discrimination, poor governance, and lack of development. “We expect and hope that the international community will hold Pakistan fully accountable for these actions,” Jaiswal said, though he did not specify what form such accountability should take or provide concrete evidence linking Islamabad to the protests.
The MEA’s intervention comes as PoJK grapples with widespread demonstrations, with local activists and political groups accusing Pakistani authorities of siphoning hydroelectric power and other resources while failing to invest in infrastructure or welfare. India’s statement aligns with its long-standing claim that PoJK is an illegally occupied territory, but the timing—amid renewed global attention on Kashmir—suggests a calculated effort to undermine Pakistan’s narrative of self-governance in the region.
—
What Happened?
The MEA’s statement followed reports of escalating protests in PoJK, particularly in regions like Muzaffarabad and Mirpur, where demonstrators have blocked roads, clashed with security forces, and demanded economic relief. Local leaders, including members of the Jammu Kashmir Joint Awami Action Committee (JAAC), have accused Pakistani authorities of marginalizing the region politically and economically, despite its strategic importance as a source of hydroelectric power.
India’s response was unusually direct. While New Delhi has historically condemned Pakistan’s control over PoJK, Thursday’s statement went further by explicitly linking the protests to Islamabad’s governance failures. The MEA did not, however, present evidence of direct Pakistani involvement in organizing the demonstrations, instead framing the unrest as an organic backlash against Islamabad’s policies.
Pakistan has yet to issue a formal rebuttal, but past responses to similar Indian allegations have dismissed them as “propaganda.” Islamabad maintains that PoJK—officially called “Azad Jammu and Kashmir” (AJK)—operates under its own elected government and that India’s claims over the territory are baseless.
—
Why It Matters
India’s decision to publicly blame Pakistan for the PoJK protests carries significant diplomatic and strategic implications:
1. Undermining Pakistan’s Narrative: By framing the unrest as a consequence of Pakistani misrule, India seeks to challenge Islamabad’s portrayal of PoJK as a self-governing entity. This could weaken Pakistan’s efforts to present itself as a responsible steward of the region, particularly in international forums where Kashmir remains a contentious issue.
2. Countering Pakistan’s Kashmir Diplomacy: Pakistan has long sought to internationalize the Kashmir dispute, frequently raising human rights concerns in Indian-administered Kashmir at the United Nations and other global platforms. India’s statement may be an attempt to shift the narrative back to Pakistan’s own record in PoJK, potentially blunting Islamabad’s diplomatic offensive.
3. Testing International Support: The MEA’s call for accountability is largely rhetorical at this stage, as no major power—including the United States, European Union, or United Nations—has signaled support for India’s position on PoJK. Historically, the international community has urged India and Pakistan to resolve the Kashmir issue bilaterally, avoiding explicit endorsements of either side’s territorial claims.
4. Domestic Political Signaling: The statement may also serve a domestic audience, reinforcing the Indian government’s stance that Kashmir is an integral part of India and that Pakistan’s control over PoJK is illegitimate. This aligns with the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party’s (BJP) long-standing position on Kashmir, which has included the revocation of Article 370 in 2019, stripping Indian-administered Kashmir of its special status.
—
Background and Context
The Kashmir dispute dates back to the partition of British India in 1947, when the princely state of Jammu and Kashmir became a flashpoint between the newly independent nations. Pakistan controls roughly one-third of the region (PoJK), while India administers the remainder, including the Kashmir Valley. The two countries have fought multiple wars over the territory, and the Line of Control (LoC) remains one of the world’s most heavily militarized borders.
# India’s Position on PoJK
India has consistently maintained that PoJK is an illegally occupied territory and an integral part of India. New Delhi’s claims are based on the 1947 Instrument of Accession, in which the then-ruler of Jammu and Kashmir, Maharaja Hari Singh, acceded to India. Pakistan rejects this argument, citing the region’s Muslim-majority population and a 1948 UN resolution calling for a plebiscite to determine Kashmir’s future—a vote that has never been held.
In recent years, India has hardened its stance on PoJK, particularly after the 2019 revocation of Article 370, which integrated Indian-administered Kashmir more fully into the Indian union. The MEA’s latest statement reflects this shift, with New Delhi increasingly willing to publicly criticize Pakistan’s governance in PoJK.
# Pakistan’s Governance in PoJK
PoJK operates under a semi-autonomous government, with its own president, prime minister, and legislative assembly. However, real power rests with Islamabad, which controls defense, foreign affairs, and currency. Critics, including local activists, accuse Pakistan of treating PoJK as a colony, extracting resources—particularly hydroelectric power—without adequate compensation to local communities.
The region’s economic struggles have fueled resentment. PoJK is rich in water resources, with several major dams, including the Mangla Dam, supplying electricity to Pakistan. Yet, local communities often face power shortages, and activists allege that Islamabad has failed to invest in education, healthcare, or infrastructure. These grievances have been at the heart of recent protests.
# Human Rights Concerns
Both India and Pakistan have faced accusations of human rights abuses in their respective parts of Kashmir. In Indian-administered Kashmir, reports of extrajudicial killings, arbitrary detentions, and restrictions on free expression have drawn international criticism. Pakistan, meanwhile, has been accused of suppressing dissent in PoJK, with reports of crackdowns on political activists and restrictions on media freedom.
India’s latest statement appears to be an attempt to highlight Pakistan’s record in PoJK, though it does not address allegations of abuses in Indian-administered Kashmir. This selective focus risks being seen as hypocritical by international observers, particularly given India’s own challenges in the region.
—
Competing Claims and Uncertainty
The MEA’s statement raises several questions and competing narratives:
1. Direct Pakistani Involvement in Protests: The MEA did not provide evidence that Pakistan’s government is directly orchestrating the protests in PoJK. While Islamabad’s policies may have contributed to local grievances, the demonstrations appear to be driven by grassroots anger over economic neglect and political marginalization. Without clear proof of Pakistani interference, India’s accusations risk being dismissed as politically motivated.
2. International Response: The MEA’s call for accountability is unlikely to gain traction with major powers. The United States, European Union, and United Nations have historically avoided taking sides in the Kashmir dispute, instead urging both countries to engage in dialogue. India’s statement may resonate with some allies, such as the United Arab Emirates or Israel, but it is unlikely to shift broader international opinion.
3. Pakistan’s Counter-Narrative: Islamabad has consistently dismissed Indian allegations about PoJK as propaganda. Pakistan’s foreign ministry is likely to respond by highlighting India’s own human rights record in Kashmir and accusing New Delhi of attempting to divert attention from its domestic challenges. Pakistan may also seek to rally support from Muslim-majority countries, framing the issue as one of self-determination for Kashmiris.
4. Local Dynamics in PoJK: The protests in PoJK are complex, involving a mix of economic grievances, political disenfranchisement, and ethnic tensions. Some local leaders have accused Pakistan of favoring certain groups over others, particularly in the distribution of resources and political representation. India’s statement does not address these nuances, instead presenting the unrest as a monolithic backlash against Pakistani rule.
—
What to Watch Next
Several developments could shape the trajectory of this dispute in the coming weeks and months:
1. Pakistan’s Response: Islamabad’s formal rebuttal to India’s accusations will be closely watched. If Pakistan adopts a defensive posture, it may seek to rally support from China, its closest ally, or attempt to internationalize the issue at the UN. Alternatively, Pakistan could downplay the protests, portraying them as a local matter rather than a broader governance failure.
2. International Reactions: Key global players, including the U.S., EU, and UN, are unlikely to endorse India’s position outright. However, their statements on the PoJK protests could provide insight into whether the international community is growing more critical of Pakistan’s handling of the region. Any shift in tone—particularly from Western nations—could embolden India’s diplomatic efforts.
3. Escalation in PoJK: The protests in PoJK show no signs of abating. If the unrest intensifies, Pakistan may respond with a heavier security crackdown, which could lead to further allegations of human rights abuses. India may seize on such developments to amplify its criticism of Pakistan, potentially leading to a tit-for-tat diplomatic exchange.
4. India’s Next Moves: New Delhi could escalate its rhetoric further, particularly if the protests in PoJK continue. India may also seek to highlight Pakistan’s record in PoJK at international forums, such as the UN Human Rights Council or during bilateral meetings with key allies. However, without concrete evidence of Pakistani interference, such efforts may have limited impact.
5. Broader Kashmir Diplomacy: The PoJK protests come at a time of heightened tensions between India and Pakistan. Recent backchannel talks between the two countries have shown little progress, and the issue of Kashmir remains a major obstacle to normalization. If the protests persist, they could further complicate efforts to resume dialogue.
—
Conclusion
India’s decision to publicly blame Pakistan for the protests in PoJK reflects a strategic effort to undermine Islamabad’s narrative and rally international support for its territorial claims. However, the MEA’s statement lacks granular evidence linking Pakistan to the unrest, instead framing the demonstrations as a natural consequence of decades of exploitation. While the move may resonate domestically and with some international allies, it is unlikely to shift the broader global consensus on Kashmir, which remains focused on bilateral resolution.
The protests in PoJK underscore the deep-seated grievances of local communities, who feel neglected by both Islamabad and New Delhi. For India, the challenge lies in balancing its diplomatic offensive with the reality that the unrest is driven by local dynamics, not just Pakistani machinations. For Pakistan, the protests pose a significant challenge to its claims of effective governance in PoJK, particularly as it seeks to counter India’s narrative on Kashmir.
As the situation evolves, the international community’s response will be critical. If major powers remain neutral, the status quo is likely to persist. But if the protests escalate and Pakistan’s response draws further criticism, India may find an opening to press its case more forcefully. For now, the MEA’s statement serves as a reminder that the Kashmir dispute remains one of the world’s most intractable conflicts, with neither side willing to cede ground.
Story synopsis gathered from: [The Hindu](https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/pakistans-decades-long-exploitation-behind-pojk-protests-mea/article71222262.ece) — source.
Corrections
If you believe this article contains an error, contact Herald Express with the source URL and supporting evidence.
Story synopsis gathered from: The Hindu – National — source.
