PoK’s bloody ballot: Elections without trust
The PoK elections, tainted by deadly violence and dismissed by India as a ‘cosmetic’, have exposed the deepening crisis Islamabad can no longer mask
The recent spate of violence in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir is neither new nor unjustified. There have been genuine issues of the people there which largely remain unaddressed by the Pakistani regime in Islamabad. These grievances get amplified when the elections, which are largely sham, take place in the valley. The elections take place in the region just to showcase the world that the region is democratically governed, though it is firmly controlled from Islamabad. Even the elections are not fair. Reports of widespread protests, electoral manipulation, and security force crackdowns on civilians are enough to prove that the democratic institutions in PoK remain weak and a facade for autocratic rule. India has consistently maintained that the entire region of Jammu and Kashmir, including PoK, is an integral part of India. New Delhi has rejected the elections, describing them as a “cosmetic electoral exercise” designed to create the illusion of legitimacy over territory that it considers illegally occupied by Pakistan. This is the long-held Indian position. The poll violence and people’s resentment only prove India’s point. The protests that PoK has been witnessing are not just about the election process alone. For nearly three years, residents have voiced grievances over rising electricity tariffs despite the region producing hydropower, inflation, unemployment, inadequate public services, and excessive interference by Pakistan’s military establishment. One of the major flashpoints has been the controversy over reserved “refugee” seats in the PoK Assembly, which dilute the political voice of residents. These longstanding economic and political frustrations have now converged with electoral discontent.
Conducting periodic elections cannot compensate for the absence of genuine political autonomy. What does this mean for the future of PoK? The region is unlikely to witness lasting stability unless local institutions are repaired and people’s grievances are addressed. Political legitimacy cannot be manufactured through elections conducted amid widespread allegations of intimidation and violence. For India, the developments present both an opportunity and a responsibility. New Delhi should continue to expose human rights concerns and governance failures in PoK through diplomatic channels while avoiding rhetoric that could unnecessarily escalate military tensions. India’s strongest argument lies not merely in its constitutional claim but in demonstrating democratic governance, economic development, and institutional stability in the Union Territories of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh. A prosperous, peaceful and inclusive Indian Kashmir remains the most persuasive counter-narrative to Pakistan’s claims. Ultimately, the future of PoK will not be determined by sham elections. It will depend on whether the people of the region are allowed genuine political participation, economic opportunity and the freedom to express dissent without fear.
