Pakistan-administered Jammu and Kashmir stands at a political crossroads as the 2026 elections approach. A year before the vote, the region’s political stage resembles more a theatre of opportunism than a contest of ideas.
Legislators and hopefuls are engaged in a frenzied game of musical chairs, flitting between parties with no regard for ideology. Grassroots workers find themselves bewildered—unsure whom to follow, as yesterday’s comrade becomes today’s defector. This erosion of trust has alienated ordinary workers and voters alike, pushing many away from parliamentary politics and leaving the field open for forces beyond the ballot box.
The roots of this malaise run deep. Ever since Jammu and Kashmir’s division in 1947, efforts have been made—sometimes subtly, often brazenly—to depoliticise this territory’s people, or at least to ensure that politics here remains firmly under institutional control.
The politics of Pakistan-administered Kashmir have never truly been autonomous. From its inception, it was steered by the imperatives of Pakistan’s state apparatus. For decades, the Muslim Conference served as a façade, with its leadership drawn from individuals acceptable to the establishment rather than from any popular mandate.
The first real challenge to this carefully choreographed order came with K H Khurshid. A man of intellect and courage, Khurshid, during his presidency, dared to speak of an “Azad Kashmir government as a representative government.” Even with Ayub Khan’s tacit support, his demand was swiftly quashed.
At a high-level meeting involving Pakistan’s top brass—including Zulfikar Ali Bhutto—Khurshid’s slogan was declared a threat to national security. Bhutto himself warned him: “Mr. Khurshid, do not try to play with fire.” This encounter not only marked the suppression of Khurshid’s vision but also signalled the lengths to which the establishment would go to keep alternative political ideas at bay.
Undeterred, Khurshid formed the Liberation League in 1962. His new party campaigned on the same slogan of recognition for Azad Kashmir’s government, contesting the 1970 elections, only to face defeat. That defeat, as recounted in the memoirs of Justice (R) Abdul Majeed Malik, was no accident.
Sardar Abdul Qayyum, a key player in those times, revealed that he had urged General Yahya Khan to back accession over autonomy. Yahya, after listening in silence, assured him: “We will support accession.” That assurance sealed Khurshid’s political fate and confirmed the establishment’s iron grip over the region’s future.
When Pakistan transitioned to a parliamentary system in the 1970s, Act 74 extended that model to the region—but not without strings attached. The Act required that Assembly members swear loyalty to the cause of accession. Those advocating autonomy or independence were shut out.
The Muslim Conference, once a beneficiary of establishment patronage, supported these changes, only to be sidelined itself when national Pakistani parties like the PPP and later the PML-N and PTI set up shop in the region. The Muslim Conference, once a dominant force, was reduced to irrelevance, clinging to a single seat.
The loyalty oath was just one tool. The entire electoral process was reshaped to screen out dissent. Nomination papers had to affirm support for accession. Political parties had to declare their belief in accession to Pakistan as a precondition for registration. Parties could be de-registered for “working against Pakistan’s ideology or the ideology of accession, or for adopting derogatory attitudes towards Pakistan’s judiciary and military.” The effect was clear: large sections of the population, including supporters of an autonomous Jammu and Kashmir, were effectively locked out of parliamentary politics.
The Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front (JKLF), once seen as the embodiment of resistance, symbolised this exclusion. For years, the JKLF boycotted elections, holding fast to its ideals. But it failed to present alternative solutions to everyday issues. With no concrete path forward, it too lost the public’s confidence.
Into this vacuum stepped the Jammu and Kashmir Joint Awami Action Committee. Initially a coalition of civil society groups, the Committee’s first campaigns focused on bread-and-butter issues—reducing electricity tariffs, securing food subsidies. To a disillusioned youth, tired of hollow slogans and failed promises, this was a breath of fresh air. The Committee succeeded where traditional parties had failed, winning public trust and reshaping the political mood.
As the region’s politicians continue their game of party-hopping, the disconnect between leaders and workers has deepened. The so-called “electables” switch loyalties at will, without consulting their supporters. Grassroots activists—once the backbone of political movements—now watch from the sidelines, alienated and disenchanted. Where once leaders inspired movements, now they seem to chase only their own survival.
Sensing the Committee’s rising popularity, traditional parties tried to piggyback on its success. The Prime Minister of Pakistan-administered Kashmir, Anwarul Haq, even claimed that the Committee’s demands mirrored those of his government. He went further, invoking “jihad” slogans at public rallies. But the youth, no longer swayed by empty rhetoric, turned away.
Today, the Awami Action Committee is seen as the only credible alternative in a broken political landscape. With its large and growing base of young supporters, it holds the potential to reshape the region’s politics. If it contests the upcoming elections, it could well emerge as a decisive force. But if it chooses instead to boycott, the impact might be limited.
The people, after all, will still need to elect leaders for the next five years. A boycott might only deepen the public’s alienation and further erode faith in the region’s political system.
In this moment of flux, the future of Pakistan-administered Jammu and Kashmir’s politics hinges not just on the manoeuvres of its “electables,” but on whether genuine alternatives can emerge—alternatives that address both the political aspirations and the everyday needs of its people.
It looks as if the 1987 elections of Indian-administered Jammu and Kashmir are getting replayed, in case the Awami Action Committee (AAC) decides to join the electoral battle. In the 1987 elections, many political actors in Srinagar who had long boycotted the democratic process chose to contest or support candidates under the Muslim United Front (MUF) banner, hoping to secure a future within the framework of a democratic polity.
This time the history is getting repeated, but in Pakistan-administered Jammu and Kashmir. In Srinagar, the massive rigging of the 1987 polls stifled democracy and set in motion an entirely new chapter of conflict. The question now is whether the AAC will follow the path once taken by the MUF and join the elections, and whether the authorities will allow genuine voices to find their way to the assembly. Fingers crossed.
Political Actors in PaJK
1. Muslim Conference
After 1974, the Muslim Conference remained firmly in the grip of Sardar Abdul Qayyum and his family for a long time. Even today, the party is led by Sardar Attique Khan. The Muslim Conference won the 2006 elections, but internal divisions led to three changes of government within the assembly. During this period, Sardar Attique served as Prime Minister twice. Today, in the 53-member assembly, the Muslim Conference holds just a single seat.
2. Muslim League-N
Raja Farooq Haider broke away from the Muslim Conference to lay the foundation of the Muslim League-N in Azad Jammu and Kashmir. The Muslim League-N of Azad Jammu and Kashmir is the regional branch of Pakistan’s Muslim League; Raja Farooq Haider was its first president, and Shah Ghulam Qadir is the current head.
3. Pakistan People’s Party
The Pakistan People’s Party of Azad Jammu and Kashmir was established in 1972 under the leadership of Pir Ali Jan Shah as a branch of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto’s Pakistan People’s Party. The Act of 1974 for Pakistan-administered Jammu and Kashmir was drafted by Bhutto’s close associate, Hafeez Pirzada. The Pakistan People’s Party, in alliance with Sardar Ibrahim’s Azad Muslim Conference, formed the government, with Abdul Hameed Khan elected as Prime Minister and Sardar Ibrahim as President.
4. Azad Jammu and Kashmir People’s Party
In 1991, Sardar Khalid Ibrahim, the son of founding President Sardar Ibrahim, formed the Azad Jammu and Kashmir People’s Party. This party had no affiliation with the Pakistan People’s Party.
5. Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI)
Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) was established in Pakistan-administered Jammu and Kashmir in 2012, but it only emerged as a significant force after former Prime Minister Barrister Sultan Mahmood joined the party in 2015 and became its president.
In the 2016 elections, PTI managed to win a few seats, but it succeeded in forming the government in the 2021 polls.
After Barrister Sultan, Sardar Tanveer Ilyas took over as president, but he later left the party. At present, the PTI is led by Sardar Abdul Qayyum Niazi, who has previously served as Prime Minister.
Have you liked the news article?