The Office of Higher Commission for Human Rights (OHCR) letter to PAREPUN Geneva about the human rights situation in Azad Jammu Kashmir (AJK) has been questioned for its credibility. The OHCR presented the deaths of one policeman and three civilians in a different light, portraying them as human rights concerns.
The May 20, 2024, letter lacked the necessary context; the protests targeted the elite culture and the escalating prices of electricity and flour. Maintaining sanity becomes problematic when the mob is on the streets; however, protests serve as crucial norms in a democratic culture, and consensus addresses their demands.
Contrary to initial perceptions, the OHCHR’s letter to PAREPUN Geneva treats a minor administrative issue in AJK as a human rights problem, causing significant controversy. Some have drawn comparisons between the biased narrative this behavior portrays and that of Indian media.
Concerns about the legitimacy and impartiality of OHCHR are understandable, given the disturbing similarities between the letter’s contents and reports in Indian media. Pressure forced the OHCHR to act without fully understanding the issue, damaging its reputation as an impartial human rights defender.
With a population of under 4 million, Pakistan has shown its commitment to education in Azad Kashmir by creating a minimum of ten colleges and universities. The literacy rate has increased dramatically, from 74% in 2017 to an estimated 86% now, far higher than many other places.
This progress showcases Pakistan’s commitment to facilitating and promoting development. The country’s infrastructure has also seen significant improvement, with the road network expanding from 400 km before partition to over 4000 km, effectively connecting the region and fostering growth.
Pakistan guarantees Kashmiri student’s equal access to higher education through a unique quota system. Many have prominent positions in politics and administrative services, where they have an equal chance to participate. The OHCHR’s letter seems to be an unjust effort to defend Indian interests and perspectives, notwithstanding Pakistan’s efforts to develop and integrate Azad Kashmir. Given Pakistan’s commitment to regional progress, the OHCHR’s stance appears more driven by external influences than a genuine concern for human rights.
With the removal of Articles 370 and 35A, human rights violations and the suppression of dissent have become more common in Indian Illegally Occupied Jammu and Kashmir (IIOJK). Nevertheless, the international community has been remarkably silent. Alternatively, the primary goal of the OHCHR’s biased reporting is to highlight the AJK protests and minimize the achievements of the territory, along with Pakistan’s efforts to integrate and develop Azad Kashmir. Supporting Indian subversive activities in Azad Jammu and Kashmir through sponsored individuals is considered a risky move that might exacerbate regional instability.
Studies conducted by the UN have shown that Azad Kashmir is quickly becoming a developed region, and they have praised Pakistan for their healthcare, education, and infrastructure policies. This acknowledgment challenges the biased stance of the OHCHR, which prioritized the AJK demonstrations over the area’s development. Despite the OHCHR’s biased perspective, the UN report highlights Pakistan’s dedication to building Azad Kashmir through its support of Pakistan’s development programs.
In reaction to India’s propaganda, Pakistan’s leadership should adopt a diplomatic approach and call for international acknowledgment of Pakistan’s development projects in Azad Kashmir. By participating in the UN and other international forums, Pakistan may share its views and highlight its achievements in Kashmir. This would improve comprehension of the procedures and reduce the OHCHR’s biased perspective.
International institutions must preserve their legitimacy and norms to ensure a just and stable global order. Without this, distrust, bias, and escalating conflicts are possible outcomes. The continued promotion of global justice, development, and peace depends on these groups’ steadfast commitment to their beliefs and refusal to take sides. They must align with their missions to avoid jeopardizing international cooperation and stability.
