The Azad Kashmir Crisis: Lessons from Kashmir's Electoral History and the Importance of Democratic Legitimacy
The Azad Kashmir Crisis: Why Pakistan Must Not Repeat the Mistakes of 1987
The growing political tensions in Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK) should serve as a warning to policymakers in Islamabad. History offers a powerful lesson from across the Line of Control: when political aspirations are denied democratic expression, the consequences can extend far beyond electoral politics.
For many Kashmiris, the most significant political turning point in modern Kashmiri history was the 1987 election in Indian-administered Jammu and Kashmir. The Muslim United Front (MUF) emerged as a formidable political force, mobilizing voters who felt marginalized by the existing political order. However, widespread allegations of electoral manipulation and rigging overshadowed the election. While Indian authorities rejected these accusations, the perception among large segments of the Kashmiri population was that a genuine democratic mandate had been stolen.
The lasting impact of 1987 was not simply the victory of one political alliance over another. It was the collapse of faith in the electoral process. Many young Kashmiris who had chosen ballots over confrontation concluded that peaceful political participation could not bring meaningful change. In the years that followed, the region descended into an armed insurgency, counterinsurgency operations, mass displacement, and decades of violence.
The bloodshed that erupted after 1987 left deep scars on Kashmiri society. Thousands of lives were lost, generations grew up amid conflict, and political polarization became entrenched. Regardless of differing interpretations regarding the causes of the insurgency, few dispute that the breakdown of public trust in democratic institutions contributed significantly to the crisis that followed. Nearly four decades later, the political and human consequences continue to shape life in the region.
This history carries an important lesson for Pakistan today.
The rise of the Awami Action Committee and other grassroots movements in Azad Kashmir reflects genuine social, economic, and political concerns among ordinary citizens. Whether one agrees with every demand raised by these movements is beside the point. What matters is that they represent a segment of public opinion that seeks expression through peaceful political mobilization.
The danger for Pakistan lies not in the existence of such movements but in the temptation to marginalize, discredit, co-opt, or suppress them rather than engage them politically. If people begin to believe that established institutions are incapable of representing their concerns, frustration inevitably grows. Democratic systems remain stable not because they eliminate dissent but because they provide credible mechanisms through which dissent can be heard.
Pakistan has long argued that one of India’s fundamental mistakes in Kashmir was the failure to respect popular political aspirations. If Islamabad wishes to avoid repeating that error, it must ensure that Azad Kashmir remains a place where political grievances can be addressed through dialogue, elections, and representative institutions.
The lesson of 1987 is not merely about a disputed election. It is about what happens when a population loses confidence in the belief that peaceful political participation matters. The tragedy that followed in Indian-administered Kashmir demonstrates how quickly alienation can evolve into a broader and more enduring crisis.
Pakistan should therefore be careful not to transform Azad Kashmir’s Awami Action Committee into the equivalent of the MUF of 1987—a movement whose supporters came to believe that democratic avenues had been closed to them. History shows that when political mandates are perceived to have been ignored or overridden, the consequences can extend far beyond the immediate moment.
The preservation of democratic legitimacy is not a concession to opposition voices; it is an investment in long-term stability. Azad Kashmir’s future will be strongest when its people are confident that their aspirations can be pursued through peaceful, democratic means. The experience of Kashmir after 1987 stands as a reminder of the costs that can follow when that confidence is lost.