2026 Pakistan-occupied Kashmir protests

2026 Azad Kashmir protests
Date	June 5, 2026 (2026-06-05) – ongoing
Caused by	Dispute over 12 reserved refugee seats Political representation Governance concerns Economic grievances Electricity tariffs and subsidies
Goals	Abolition of refugee seats Implementation of JAAC's 38-point charter Greater political representation Governance reforms
Methods	General strikes Long marches Demonstrations Road blockades Rallies Sit-ins
Status	Ongoing
Result	JAAC banned under anti-terror legislation Internet and communication restrictions imposed Arrests and sedition cases filed Multiple deaths and injuries
Parties
Jammu Kashmir Joint Awami Action Committee (JAAC / JKJAAC) Government of Pakistan Government of Azad Kashmir Azad Kashmir Police Punjab Rangers Federal Constabulary
Casualties and losses
At least 30 protesters reported killed More than 200 reported injured Unknown

The 2026 Azad Kashmir protests (also referred to as the 2026 Pakistan-occupied Kashmir protests) are an ongoing protest movement that began in June 2026 across Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK), officially administered by Pakistan as Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK), a territory claimed by India as part of the former princely state of Jammu and Kashmir. The demonstrations were organised primarily by the Jammu Kashmir Joint Awami Action Committee (JAAC / JKJAAC), a coalition of traders, lawyers, transport workers, students and civil society organisations. Initially centred on opposition to the continued reservation of 12 seats in the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly for refugees residing elsewhere in Pakistan, the movement subsequently expanded to include demands for constitutional reforms, greater political representation, administrative accountability and implementation of the JAAC's 38-point charter.

The protests intensified after the Government of Azad Kashmir designated the JAAC as a prohibited organisation under anti-terrorism legislation on 5 June 2026. Authorities arrested activists, imposed restrictions on communications and movement, and deployed additional police and paramilitary forces throughout the territory. Clashes between protesters and security personnel, particularly in Rawalakot, resulted in multiple deaths and injuries, prompting criticism from human rights organisations including Amnesty International, which expressed concern over the use of anti-terror legislation, arbitrary arrests and restrictions on freedom of assembly.

Following the expiry of the JAAC's ultimatum on 23 June, demonstrations continued across Muzaffarabad, Rawalakot, Bagh, Kotli, Mirpur and other districts. Protest leaders rejected reports that the planned long march towards Muzaffarabad had been postponed and stated that the movement would continue until meaningful progress had been made on constitutional amendments and political reforms. Women, students and schoolchildren emerged as prominent participants in the demonstrations, transforming the movement from a trader-led campaign into a broader civil society mobilisation.

During the later stages of the protests, demonstrators accused Pakistani authorities of restricting the movement of food, fuel and medicines into the territory, resulting in reported shortages of essential commodities in several districts. Pakistani authorities denied imposing a blockade and maintained that transportation disruptions resulted from security measures introduced during the unrest. By late June 2026, the protests had become one of the largest sustained political movements in Pakistan-administered Kashmir in recent years, attracting extensive attention from regional and international media.

Background

Mass protest movements have periodically emerged in PoK over issues relating to governance, economic conditions and political representation. During 2024 and 2025, demonstrations organised by traders, transport workers and civil society groups focused on electricity tariffs, wheat subsidies, taxation and the distribution of public resources. These movements resulted in negotiations with authorities and partial concessions, but many demands remained unresolved.

The Jammu Kashmir Joint Awami Action Committee (JAAC / JKJAAC) emerged as the principal umbrella organisation representing a broad coalition of traders' associations, transport unions, lawyers, students and activists. The organization previously led major protest movements in 2024 and 2025 concerning electricity tariffs, flour prices and governance issues. Since 2023, many protests were held in Pakistan-administered Kashmir addressing economic and political grievances of the locals. In May 2023, residents began protesting rising electricity tariffs alongside allegations of flour smuggling and shortages of subsidised wheat. The JKJAAC-led movement escalated in May 2024, when protesters undertook a long march towards Muzaffarabad, leading to violent clashes that resulted in at least five deaths. In September and October 2025, the JKJAAC issued a 38-point charter of demands and called for a lockdown, after which the government imposed a communications blackout in response.

The movement increasingly shifted its focus from economic issues to constitutional and political questions, particularly representation within the territory's legislative institutions. In 2026, the movement focused mostly on the twelve seats reserved in the Azad Kashmir Legislative Assembly for refugees from Jammu and Kashmir living in Pakistan. JKJAAC leaders argued that the seats provide political influence to individuals who do not reside in Azad Kashmir and affect the political representation of local residents.

Ahead of the 2026 legislative elections, controversy intensified regarding the 12 seats reserved for refugees from Indian-administered Jammu and Kashmir living elsewhere in Pakistan. JAAC leaders argued that the arrangement diluted the political influence of residents living in Azad Kashmir and gave disproportionate electoral weight to voters residing outside the territory. Government officials and supporters of the system maintained that the reserved seats reflected the historical circumstances of the Kashmir dispute and ensured representation for displaced communities.

In May 2026, talks between a federal ministerial team and the JKJAAC leadership broke down with the latter finally calling for protests. Subsequently, on 5 June 2026, the local government proscribed the Committee under the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2014 and banned it. The dispute gained further prominence after legal and administrative decisions upheld the continuation of the refugee-seat arrangement. In response, the JAAC announced a region-wide campaign demanding constitutional reforms and the abolition of the reserved seats. Protest organisers warned that failure to address the issue would result in a long march and general strike across the territory.

Demands

The JAAC's programme combined economic, political and constitutional demands. Protest organisers argued that the existing political structure of Pakistan-occupied Kashmir provided inadequate representation to residents and disproportionately favoured political elites and refugee constituencies located outside the territory.

One of the principal demands of the Jammu Kashmir Joint Awami Action Committee (JAAC / JKJAAC) during the 2026 protests was the abolition of the 12 seats reserved in the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly for refugees from Indian-administered Jammu and Kashmir and their descendants residing in Pakistan. Protest organizers argued that political representation in Azad Kashmir should be limited to residents of the territory and maintained that the reserved seats allowed non-residents to influence its political affairs. The issue gained prominence ahead of the 2026 Azad Kashmir Legislative Assembly election, as elections for the refugee seats were scheduled alongside those for the territorial constituencies. The JAAC included the abolition of the refugee-seat system among its key political demands and organized demonstrations across Azad Kashmir on the issue.

Supporters of the reserved seats argued that they provide representation to displaced Kashmiris and are an integral part of the constitutional framework of Azad Kashmir. On 7 June 2026, the Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir ruled that the seats could not be abolished through executive action and could only be altered through a constitutional amendment. Following the ruling, protests continued in several parts of Azad Kashmir, with the issue remaining one of the central points of contention between the JAAC and the authorities.

The movement also demanded lower electricity tariffs, increased subsidies for wheat and essential commodities, greater local control over revenues generated by hydroelectric projects, reforms to public administration and increased accountability among elected officials. Protest organisers further called for the reduction of privileges and allowances granted to political officeholders and senior government officials.

In May 2026, the JAAC issued a 38-point charter of demands and warned that a territory-wide strike and long march would be organised if negotiations with authorities failed to produce satisfactory results.

The movement's demands evolved during the course of the protests, with constitutional reforms becoming increasingly prominent alongside its original economic and governance-related objectives. Protest leaders argued that the existing constitutional framework governing Pakistan-occupied Kashmir limited the political authority of locally elected institutions and called for amendments that would provide greater autonomy and democratic representation to residents of the territory.

The JAAC also reiterated its demand for the abolition of the 12 seats reserved in the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly for refugees residing elsewhere in Pakistan. Protest organisers argued that the arrangement reduced the political representation of residents living within the territory and no longer reflected contemporary political realities. Government officials defended the system as part of the historical constitutional framework relating to the Kashmir dispute.

In addition, protest leaders called for the implementation of the JAAC's 38-point charter, which included measures relating to administrative accountability, judicial independence, electoral reforms, local control over natural resources, reductions in public expenditure on elected officials and greater transparency in public administration. They maintained that these reforms were necessary to strengthen democratic governance and improve public confidence in the territory's institutions.

During negotiations with government representatives in late June 2026, JAAC leaders stated that the planned long march and other protest activities would continue until meaningful progress had been achieved on constitutional amendments and the implementation of the movement's principal demands. They rejected reports that the demonstrations would be suspended before an agreement had been reached with the authorities.

Supreme Court ruling

On 7 June 2026, the Supreme Court of Azad Kashmir ruled that the twelve refugee seats are constitutionally protected and cannot be abolished without a constitutional amendment. The court further stated that elections to the Legislative Assembly should proceed within the constitutional framework. The decision strengthened the government's position ahead of the legislative elections scheduled for July 2026 but was rejected by the JKJAAC, which announced the continuation of its protest campaign.

Ban of the JAAC

On 5 June 2026, the Government of Azad Kashmir designated the Jammu Kashmir Joint Awami Action Committee as a prohibited organisation under anti-terror legislation. Authorities stated that the measure was necessary to preserve public order and prevent unrest ahead of the planned demonstrations and the upcoming legislative elections.

The decision was condemned by JAAC leaders, who rejected accusations that the movement posed a security threat. Protest organisers argued that the ban represented an attempt to suppress political opposition and prevent demonstrations relating to electoral representation and governance issues.

Following the ban, authorities initiated a broad security operation targeting the movement's leadership. According to Reuters and Associated Press reporting, numerous activists were detained, sedition cases were filed against prominent JAAC leaders and rewards were announced for information leading to the arrest of certain organisers. The government also imposed temporary internet and mobile network restrictions and increased the deployment of security personnel in various areas. On 9 June, NetBlocks stated that its data revealed that access to the web remained severely restricted in Pakistan-administered Kashmir.

Additional police and paramilitary personnel were deployed throughout the territory, particularly in Muzaffarabad, Rawalakot and other urban centres expected to host demonstrations. Road checkpoints were established and security measures were strengthened ahead of the planned long march. Helicopter surveillance flights were set up over Rawalakot and Muzaffarabad.

Reaction to the ban

The ban drew criticism from human-rights organisations and civil society groups. Amnesty International described the designation of the JAAC as a dangerous escalation and warned that anti-terror legislation should not be used to criminalise peaceful political dissent.

Amnesty further expressed concern regarding reports of arbitrary arrests, restrictions on freedom of assembly and the use of communication shutdowns during the unrest. The organisation called upon Pakistani authorities to respect international human-rights standards and ensure that any restrictions on protest activity complied with international law.

Several commentators and analysts viewed the ban within the broader context of growing political tensions ahead of the 2026 elections. Reporting by Frontline, Al Jazeera and other outlets noted that the dispute over refugee representation had become one of the most significant political controversies in Azad Kashmir in recent years.

Timeline

Pre-strike developments

During late May and early June 2026, negotiations between protest leaders and authorities failed to resolve disagreements regarding the JAAC's demands. Following the collapse of talks, the movement intensified preparations for a region-wide shutdown and long march toward Muzaffarabad.

Authorities responded by increasing security deployments and imposing restrictions in anticipation of demonstrations. Activists reported increased surveillance and detentions, while government officials warned that any attempts to disrupt public order would be met with legal action.

On the eve of the planned protests, the United States Embassy in Pakistan issued a demonstration alert warning of possible disruptions to transportation, communications and public services in Azad Kashmir. The advisory urged American citizens to avoid areas where demonstrations were expected to take place and to monitor local developments closely.

Reports from local media and civil society organisations indicated that checkpoints had been established on major roads and that movement between districts was being closely monitored by security forces.

Rawalakot clashes

The most serious violence associated with the protests occurred in and around Rawalakot, where confrontations between demonstrators and security forces took place prior to the planned region-wide strike. The clashes followed arrests of JAAC activists and growing tensions surrounding the government's decision to prohibit the organisation and prevent planned demonstrations.

Following the Supreme Court's decision upholding the constitutional status of the twelve legislative seats reserved for Kashmiri refugees residing in Pakistan, demonstrations intensified across Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK). Public rallies, road blockades, sit-ins and shutter-down strikes were reported in Muzaffarabad, Rawalakot, Mirpur, Kotli, Bagh and several other towns. By official estimates, at least 10,000 protestors had gathered outside the city of Rawalakot.

On 8 June 2026, clashes erupted between protesters and security forces in Rawalakot and surrounding areas. According to regional authorities and media, between eleven and fifteen people were killed and more than seventy were injured during the unrest, including protesters and security personnel. Official figures during the first week of protests also put the casualties at 7 people killed in Kotli and 1 killed in Mirpur.

Thousands of protesters gathered in Rawalakot and surrounding areas despite restrictions imposed by authorities. Demonstrators accused the government of attempting to suppress political dissent and prevent mobilisation against the refugee-seat system. Security personnel were deployed throughout the city and road access to several locations was restricted.

Accounts of the violence differed between officials and protest organisers. Government representatives stated that demonstrators attacked security personnel, attempted to breach security cordons and damaged public property. Protest organisers, eyewitnesses and several media outlets alleged that police and paramilitary forces opened fire on demonstrators and used excessive force, including live ammunition, against largely unarmed protesters. JKJAAC leader Shaukat Nawaz Mir described the events in Rawalakot as a "massacre" and vowed to continue the protest movement despite the crackdown.

Independent reporting confirmed that live ammunition was used during at least some of the confrontations, although accounts differed regarding the circumstances that led to the shootings and the sequence of events preceding the violence.

The clashes quickly became the deadliest episode of unrest in Azad Kashmir since the protest movements of 2024 and 2025 and attracted extensive international media coverage.

Casualties and injuries

Deaths

Casualty figures reported during the protests varied substantially between sources.

Reuters, Associated Press, ABC News and Al Jazeera initially reported that at least 11 people were killed and more than 70 injured during clashes between protesters and security forces in Rawalakot and surrounding areas.

Subsequent reporting by NDTV, Frontline, Times of India, Kashmir Times and other outlets cited protest organisers and activists who alleged that the death toll exceeded 30 and that more than 200 people had been injured during the crackdown.

Authorities disputed several of the higher casualty estimates, while human-rights organisations called for independent investigations into the deaths and injuries reported during the unrest.

Injuries

More than 70 people were reported injured during the Rawalakot clashes, including protesters, civilians and members of the security forces.

Hospitals in Rawalakot and neighbouring districts treated victims suffering from gunshot wounds, injuries caused by crowd-control measures and other protest-related violence.

Additional injuries were reported during demonstrations and confrontations that occurred during the region-wide strike on 9 June.

Use of force allegations

The actions of Pakistani security forces during the protests became a major source of controversy. Protest organisers, civil society groups and several media outlets alleged that police and paramilitary personnel used excessive force against demonstrators, including the use of live ammunition, tear gas and baton charges during efforts to disperse crowds.

According to Reuters, clashes erupted after authorities attempted to prevent demonstrations organised by the banned JAAC, resulting in deaths and injuries among both protesters and security personnel. Protest leaders and eyewitnesses alleged that security forces opened fire on demonstrators in Rawalakot and other locations, contributing to the high casualty figures reported during the unrest.

Several reports alleged that women and children were among those killed or injured during the crackdown. The Times of India, citing activists and protest organisers, reported allegations that numerous minors and pregnant women were among the victims. These claims could not be independently verified by international news agencies at the time of reporting.

Authorities rejected accusations that security forces had deliberately targeted peaceful protesters. Government representatives maintained that force was used only after demonstrators attacked security personnel, damaged public property and attempted to breach security cordons. Officials stated that law-enforcement personnel acted in accordance with security procedures and denied allegations of indiscriminate firing.

Amnesty International criticised the authorities' response to the protests and called for independent investigations into allegations of excessive force, arbitrary arrests and restrictions on freedom of assembly. The organisation stated that anti-terror legislation should not be used to suppress peaceful political dissent and urged Pakistani authorities to ensure accountability for any human-rights violations committed during the unrest.

The allegations of excessive force became a central issue in subsequent domestic and international discussions regarding the protests, with human-rights advocates, diaspora organisations and opposition groups demanding transparent investigations into the deaths and injuries reported during the crackdown.

Several media organisations continued to report allegations by protest organisers that civilians, including women and children, were among those affected during the government's crackdown on the demonstrations. Protest leaders accused Pakistani security forces of employing excessive force to disperse gatherings and suppress the movement, while also alleging arbitrary arrests and intimidation of activists.

According to protest representatives, the continued deployment of police and paramilitary personnel, combined with restrictions on movement and the transportation of essential supplies, intensified humanitarian concerns in several districts. Activists alleged that these measures disproportionately affected vulnerable groups, including women, children and elderly residents. Pakistani authorities denied deliberately targeting civilians and maintained that security operations were conducted solely to restore public order and prevent further violence.

Human rights advocates and protest organisers continued to call for independent investigations into the deaths, injuries and arrests reported during the unrest. They also urged Pakistani authorities to ensure accountability for any unlawful use of force and to safeguard the rights to peaceful assembly, freedom of expression and political participation.

General strike of 9 June

On 9 June 2026, the JAAC's call for a shutter-down and wheel-jam strike was widely observed across Pakistan-occupied Kashmir. A region-wide strike called by the JKJAAC on 9 June resulted in the closure of markets, businesses, educational institutions and transport services across much of Azad Kashmir. Thousands of supporters participated in demonstrations despite restrictions imposed by the authorities. Reports from Muzaffarabad and other urban centres indicated that commercial activity was largely suspended and public transport services were significantly disrupted.

Markets remained closed in Muzaffarabad, Rawalakot, Kotli, Bagh, Mirpur and other towns as protesters responded to the strike call. Streets in several cities were reported to be largely deserted, while public transport services were significantly disrupted.

According to Reuters, the strike represented one of the largest coordinated shutdowns in the territory in recent years. Protest leaders declared that the movement would continue until authorities addressed demands relating to political representation, governance and economic reforms.

Associated Press reported that the strike affected businesses and transportation across large parts of the territory, demonstrating the organisational capacity of the JAAC despite the government's decision to ban the movement.

Long march

A central component of the protest campaign was a planned long march toward Muzaffarabad. Organisers described the march as a peaceful demonstration intended to pressure authorities into addressing longstanding grievances regarding governance and representation.

Government authorities attempted to prevent the march through arrests, checkpoints and restrictions on movement. Protest organisers accused officials of seeking to obstruct peaceful political activity, while authorities argued that restrictions were necessary to prevent violence and maintain public order.

Despite these measures, groups of demonstrators continued to assemble and attempted to proceed toward Muzaffarabad from various districts, leading to additional confrontations with security forces and further arrests.

Continuation of the long march

Following the expiry of the JAAC's 23 June deadline, protest leaders announced that the planned long march towards Muzaffarabad would proceed as scheduled despite increased security measures and reports that authorities were attempting to prevent demonstrators from reaching the capital. JAAC representatives rejected speculation that the march had been postponed, stating that the movement would continue until its constitutional and political demands were addressed.

Speaking at public gatherings in Rawalakot, JAAC leaders urged supporters to remain peaceful while continuing preparations for the march. Organisers stated that discussions with government representatives had failed to produce an agreement on the movement's principal demands, including the abolition of the 12 refugee seats in the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly, constitutional reforms and the implementation of the committee's 38-point charter.

Thousands of demonstrators continued to participate in rallies and public meetings across Rawalakot, Muzaffarabad, Bagh, Kotli and other districts. Protest organisers described the mobilisation as one of the largest sustained protest movements in Pakistan-administered Kashmir in recent years, with traders, lawyers, transport workers, students and civil society organisations continuing to support the campaign despite the government's designation of the JAAC as a prohibited organisation.

Pakistani authorities maintained extensive security deployments throughout the territory, including checkpoints on major highways and roads leading towards Muzaffarabad. Protest leaders alleged that security forces were attempting to prevent participants from joining the march by restricting movement between districts and monitoring the activities of organisers. Officials maintained that the measures were necessary to preserve public order and prevent further violence.

JAAC leaders stated that the movement would continue until political prisoners were released, restrictions imposed following the ban on the organisation were withdrawn and meaningful negotiations commenced regarding constitutional reforms. They further reiterated that the long march represented a peaceful campaign intended to secure greater political representation and institutional reforms rather than a violent confrontation with the authorities.

Negotiations

Throughout late June 2026, representatives of the Jammu Kashmir Joint Awami Action Committee (JAAC) continued discussions with officials of the Government of Azad Kashmir in an attempt to resolve the ongoing protests. Despite multiple rounds of negotiations, protest leaders stated that no agreement had been reached on the movement's principal constitutional and political demands.

JAAC representatives stated that the government had requested additional time to consider the movement's proposals, including constitutional amendments, the abolition of the 12 refugee seats in the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly, and implementation of the committee's 38-point charter. Protest leaders, however, maintained that demonstrations and preparations for the proposed long march would continue while negotiations remained inconclusive.

According to JAAC leaders, the movement was prepared to suspend protest activities only after the government formally accepted its principal demands. They rejected reports suggesting that the proposed long march had been cancelled or indefinitely postponed, reiterating that the campaign would continue until meaningful progress had been achieved through negotiations.

Government representatives continued to urge restraint while discussions remained ongoing. Authorities maintained that dialogue represented the preferred mechanism for resolving the dispute but also stated that security measures would remain in force until public order had been restored across the territory.

Participation of women, students and children

As the protests entered a prolonged phase in late June, women, students and schoolchildren emerged as some of the most visible participants in demonstrations organised by the Jammu Kashmir Joint Awami Action Committee (JAAC). Large numbers of women attended rallies, public meetings and protest marches across Rawalakot, Muzaffarabad, Bagh, Kotli and neighbouring districts, while students participated in demonstrations demanding constitutional reforms and greater political representation for residents of Pakistan-occupied Kashmir.

According to protest organisers, women assumed increasingly prominent leadership roles as demonstrations continued despite the government's ban on the JAAC. Local committees organised neighbourhood meetings and rallies in which women addressed crowds alongside lawyers, traders and student representatives. Organisers stated that broad participation by women and young people reflected growing public dissatisfaction with the territory's political and constitutional arrangements.

Several media organisations reported that schoolchildren and university students also joined the demonstrations, carrying banners and chanting slogans supporting the movement's demands. Protest leaders described the participation of younger residents as evidence that the movement had expanded beyond its original economic grievances to encompass wider constitutional and governance issues.

Protest organisers further alleged that Pakistani security personnel attempted to prevent women from travelling to demonstration sites by establishing checkpoints on major roads and restricting access to protest venues. According to News18, activists accused members of the Pakistan Rangers of stopping vehicles carrying female demonstrators and preventing them from joining public gatherings in some areas.

The allegations were rejected by Pakistani authorities, who maintained that security measures introduced across the territory were intended to preserve public order and regulate public gatherings rather than target any particular group of demonstrators. Protest leaders nevertheless continued to encourage the participation of women and students, describing their involvement as central to the movement's campaign for constitutional reforms and political representation.

Political analysts observed that the sustained participation of women, students and children distinguished the 2026 protests from earlier demonstrations in the territory, transforming the movement from a predominantly trader-led campaign into a broader civil society mobilisation encompassing multiple sections of the population.

Military helicopter crash

On 10 June 2026, a Pakistan Army MI-17 helicopter crashed near Muzaffarabad, killing all military personnel on board. According to the Pakistani military, the helicopter crashed shortly after takeoff because of a technical fault. The aircraft was reportedly transporting security personnel deployed in the region during the ongoing protest-related security operation. One of the military helicopters used in surveillance crashed over Muzaffarabad, killing all 22 personnel onboard.

Pakistani authorities stated that there was no indication that the crash was connected to the protests or unrest in the region and announced an investigation into the incident. President Asif Ali Zardari, Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and Chief of Army Staff Asim Munir issued condolence messages following the crash. Prime Minister Faisal Mumtaz Rathore stated that dialogue remained possible but maintained that constitutionally protected issues could not be altered without following legal procedures.

Communications restrictions

Throughout the protests, authorities imposed restrictions on communications and movement across several parts of Pakistan-occupied Kashmir. Human rights organisations, protest leaders and media reports alleged that internet services were periodically disrupted and that security checkpoints were established on major highways connecting Muzaffarabad, Rawalakot, Bagh, Kotli and other districts.

Protest organisers alleged that the restrictions were intended to prevent demonstrators from travelling between districts and to hinder the organisation of rallies and the proposed long march towards Muzaffarabad. According to activists, vehicles transporting protesters were subjected to searches and delays at security checkpoints, while movement on several highways was monitored by police and paramilitary personnel.

Reports published during the later stages of the protests also described interruptions in the movement of commercial vehicles transporting food, fuel and medicines into the territory. Protest leaders argued that these restrictions contributed to shortages of essential commodities in several districts, while Pakistani authorities maintained that temporary transportation disruptions resulted from security operations rather than an official blockade.

Amnesty International criticised the use of communication restrictions during the protests, stating that measures affecting internet access and freedom of assembly should comply with international human rights standards. The organisation called upon Pakistani authorities to refrain from using security legislation to suppress peaceful political activity and urged an end to arbitrary restrictions on communications and movement.

Government officials defended the restrictions as temporary security measures introduced to preserve public order during the unrest. Authorities stated that roadblocks, checkpoints and communication controls were necessary to prevent violence and facilitate law enforcement operations while rejecting allegations that the measures were intended to suppress peaceful political dissent.

Blockade and humanitarian situation

Following the expiry of the Jammu Kashmir Joint Awami Action Committee (JAAC)'s 23 June ultimatum, protest leaders accused Pakistani authorities of imposing an effective blockade on Pakistan-occupied Kashmir by restricting the movement of essential commodities into the territory. According to protest organisers, security forces established checkpoints on major highways connecting the region with Punjab, Pakistan, delaying or preventing the movement of trucks carrying food, fuel and medicines into several districts.

Residents in Muzaffarabad, Rawalakot, Bagh, Kotli and the Neelum Valley reported shortages of flour, vegetables, cooking oil, petrol and medicines as commercial supplies were disrupted. Pharmacies and grocery stores reportedly experienced difficulty replenishing stocks, while long queues formed outside fuel stations in several towns. Protest organisers alleged that the restrictions were intended to weaken the movement by creating economic and humanitarian pressure on the local population.

Several residents told media organisations that they had travelled to Rawalpindi and Islamabad to purchase essential medicines and household supplies that had become unavailable locally. Protest leaders also alleged that trucks carrying flour, vegetables and other necessities were prevented from entering the territory, contributing to rising prices and shortages in local markets.

The JAAC accused Pakistani authorities of employing "starvation tactics" against civilians by restricting access to essential goods. According to protest representatives, women, children and elderly residents were disproportionately affected by the shortages. Some activists described the measures as an attempt to force demonstrators to abandon the protest movement through economic hardship rather than direct confrontation.

Pakistani authorities denied imposing a blockade and maintained that security measures introduced across the territory were intended to preserve public order during the ongoing unrest. Officials rejected allegations that humanitarian supplies had been deliberately restricted and stated that transportation disruptions were the result of security operations and protest-related road closures rather than government policy.

The reported shortages became a significant issue during the later phase of the protests, with both domestic and international media highlighting growing humanitarian concerns alongside the movement's political demands. Protest organisers warned that unless restrictions were lifted and negotiations resumed, shortages of food, fuel and medicines would continue to worsen across the territory.

Government response

The Government of Azad Kashmir and federal authorities defended the measures taken during the unrest, arguing that the restrictions were necessary to maintain public order and prevent further violence. Officials accused elements within the protest movement of encouraging confrontation with security forces and disrupting public services. Authorities maintained that the designation of the JAAC under anti-terror legislation was justified by concerns regarding security and stability. Government representatives stated that law enforcement agencies had acted to prevent escalation and to ensure the safety of residents during the protests. Pakistan Defence Minister Khawaja Asif urged "complete obedience to state."

Following the outbreak of violence, security deployments were increased throughout the territory. Police, paramilitary personnel and other security forces were stationed in major urban centres, while checkpoints were established on roads leading to Muzaffarabad and other strategic locations.

Authorities also defended internet restrictions and movement controls imposed during the unrest, arguing that such measures were necessary to prevent the spread of violence and misinformation. Protest organisers and human-rights groups rejected this justification, claiming that the restrictions hindered freedom of expression and access to information.

Government officials rejected allegations that security forces had deliberately targeted peaceful protesters, maintaining that force was used only when demonstrations became violent. Protest leaders disputed these claims and accused security personnel of employing excessive force against demonstrators.

Negotiations and continued security measures

Following the expiry of the JAAC's 23 June ultimatum, authorities continued negotiations with representatives of the Jammu Kashmir Joint Awami Action Committee (JAAC) in an effort to defuse the protests. Protest leaders, however, maintained that no agreement had been reached on the movement's principal demands and rejected reports that the planned long march had been postponed. They stated that demonstrations would continue until meaningful constitutional and political reforms were implemented.

Pakistani authorities maintained an extensive security presence throughout Pakistan-occupied Kashmir, with police and paramilitary personnel deployed at major intersections, government buildings and highways connecting the territory with Punjab, Pakistan. Checkpoints remained in place on routes leading to Muzaffarabad and other major towns, while security personnel continued to monitor the movement of protesters and organisers.

According to protest organisers, security forces continued to restrict travel between districts by establishing roadblocks and conducting vehicle inspections, making it difficult for demonstrators to reach planned protest sites. JAAC leaders alleged that these measures were intended to reduce participation in rallies and the proposed long march, while government officials maintained that they were necessary to preserve law and order and prevent further violence.

Authorities also continued to defend the decision to prohibit the JAAC under anti-terrorism legislation, maintaining that the organisation's activities posed a threat to public order. Protest leaders rejected the designation, arguing that the movement remained peaceful and that the ban had been used to justify arrests, restrictions on public assembly and increased surveillance of activists.

Despite the continued security measures, demonstrations persisted in several districts throughout late June, with protest organisers reiterating that negotiations would continue only if the government agreed to discuss constitutional amendments, electoral reforms and the implementation of the JAAC's 38-point charter.

International reaction

Amnesty International

Amnesty International strongly criticised the government's response to the protests. The organisation condemned the designation of the JAAC as a terrorist organisation and described the move as a dangerous escalation in the treatment of political dissent in Azad Kashmir.

The organisation expressed concern regarding reports of arbitrary arrests, internet shutdowns, restrictions on freedom of assembly and allegations of excessive force against protesters. Amnesty called upon Pakistani authorities to respect international human-rights obligations and ensure accountability for any violations committed during the unrest.

United States

Prior to the planned demonstrations, the United States Embassy in Pakistan issued a security advisory warning of possible disruptions associated with the protests. The advisory noted the possibility of transportation interruptions, communication restrictions and security incidents and advised American citizens to avoid areas where demonstrations were expected to occur.

The advisory was widely cited by international media as evidence of concerns regarding the potential scale of the unrest and the likelihood of significant disruptions across the territory.

India

The protests received significant attention in India, where officials and media outlets monitored developments in Pakistan-administered Kashmir. Indian media extensively reported on the JAAC's demands, the ban imposed on the organisation, the violence in Rawalakot and allegations of human-rights violations.

The Ministry of External Affairs reiterated India's longstanding position regarding territories administered by Pakistan and criticised political developments affecting the region. Coverage of the protests frequently appeared within broader discussions relating to the Kashmir dispute and governance issues in Pakistan-administered territories.

Pakistan

The continued protests prompted renewed debate within Pakistan regarding the constitutional status and political identity of residents of Pakistan-occupied Kashmir. During the unrest, Pakistan's Defence Minister Khawaja Asif stated that residents of the territory were "not Kashmiris" but Pakistanis, arguing that they should identify themselves with Pakistan rather than as a separate political entity. His remarks drew criticism from protest leaders and opposition figures, who argued that the statement contradicted Pakistan's longstanding official position regarding the disputed status of the region.

Leaders of the Jammu Kashmir Joint Awami Action Committee (JAAC) accused the federal government of attempting to undermine the political identity of the territory while refusing to address longstanding constitutional and governance concerns. Protest organisers stated that the movement sought greater political representation, constitutional reforms and increased local autonomy rather than the abolition of the territory's distinct political identity.

Political commentators observed that the Defence Minister's remarks generated additional controversy at a time when demonstrations were expanding across the territory. Several analysts argued that the comments further strengthened the protesters' claims that residents of Pakistan-administered Kashmir lacked meaningful political representation within Pakistan's constitutional framework.

Despite the controversy, Pakistani authorities continued to maintain that the security measures adopted during the protests were intended solely to preserve public order and denied allegations that the federal government was attempting to suppress peaceful political dissent.

Human rights organisations

In addition to Amnesty International, several civil-society organisations and activists expressed concern regarding the treatment of protesters and the use of anti-terror legislation against a political movement. Critics argued that criminalising protest activity risked undermining freedoms of assembly, association and expression.

Advocacy groups called for transparent investigations into the deaths and injuries reported during the unrest and urged authorities to release individuals detained solely for peaceful political activities.

Diaspora response

The protests received significant attention among members of the Kashmiri diaspora, particularly in the United Kingdom, where demonstrations, public meetings and solidarity campaigns were organised following reports of clashes between protesters and Pakistani security forces. Diaspora organisations called for international scrutiny of the situation in Pakistan-administered Kashmir and urged foreign governments and human rights organisations to monitor developments in the territory.

Demonstrators gathered outside Pakistani diplomatic missions and organised rallies in support of the protest movement, condemning the reported use of force against demonstrators and expressing support for the constitutional and political demands advanced by the Jammu Kashmir Joint Awami Action Committee (JAAC). Protesters also criticised the designation of the JAAC as a prohibited organisation and called for the release of detained activists.

Diaspora organisations continued to highlight reports of alleged restrictions on movement, shortages of food, fuel and medicines and the participation of women and students in the demonstrations. Several groups appealed to international human rights organisations to investigate allegations of excessive force, arbitrary arrests and restrictions on freedom of assembly during the protests.

The continued demonstrations in late June sustained international attention on the movement, with diaspora groups maintaining public campaigns through rallies, petitions and social media. Activists stated that these efforts were intended to increase international awareness of the protesters' demands and encourage external scrutiny of developments in Pakistan-administered Kashmir.

Political and media commentary

The continued demonstrations attracted widespread attention from political commentators and regional media, many of whom described the protests as the most significant challenge to Pakistan's administration of Pakistan-occupied Kashmir since the large-scale demonstrations of 2024 and 2025. Analysts noted that the movement had evolved from an economic campaign into a broader constitutional movement centred on political representation, governance reforms and the relationship between the territory and the federal government.

Several commentators observed that the participation of traders, lawyers, transport workers, women, students and civil society organisations distinguished the 2026 protests from previous movements in the territory. They argued that the broad social composition of the demonstrations reflected growing public dissatisfaction with existing constitutional arrangements and governance in Pakistan-administered Kashmir.

Coverage of the later stages of the protests increasingly focused on allegations of restrictions on movement, shortages of food, fuel and medicines, and the continuation of the proposed long march despite the government's security measures. While protest organisers described these developments as evidence of an escalating humanitarian situation, Pakistani authorities maintained that the restrictions were temporary security measures implemented to preserve public order.

Aftermath

By late June 2026, the protests had developed into one of the largest sustained protest movements in the history of Pakistan-occupied Kashmir. Despite the ban on the Jammu Kashmir Joint Awami Action Committee (JAAC), arrests of activists and an extensive security deployment across the territory, demonstrations continued in Muzaffarabad, Rawalakot, Bagh, Kotli, Mirpur and other districts. Protest leaders stated that the movement would continue until the government accepted their principal constitutional and political demands.

The demonstrations increasingly evolved beyond their initial focus on electoral representation and the abolition of the 12 reserved refugee seats in the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly. Political analysts observed that the movement had broadened into a wider campaign calling for constitutional reforms, greater local autonomy, administrative accountability and increased control over the territory's political and economic affairs.

The prolonged demonstrations also attracted increased participation from women, students, lawyers, traders and transport workers, transforming what had initially been a trader-led protest movement into a broader civil society mobilisation. Observers noted that participation by multiple sections of society contributed to the movement's ability to sustain demonstrations despite continuing arrests and security restrictions.

Reports of shortages of food, fuel and medicines during the protests also attracted wider attention. Protest leaders accused Pakistani authorities of using restrictions on transportation and movement to pressure demonstrators by disrupting supplies of essential commodities. Pakistani authorities denied imposing a blockade, maintaining that temporary disruptions resulted from security measures implemented during the unrest.

The protests received extensive coverage in Indian and international media, with several commentators describing the unrest as one of the most significant political challenges faced by the Government of Pakistan in the territory since the large-scale demonstrations of 2024 and 2025. Analysts suggested that the movement reflected broader dissatisfaction over governance, political representation and constitutional arrangements in Pakistan-administered Kashmir, while also exposing tensions between local political groups and the federal government.

As of late June 2026, no comprehensive political settlement had been reached between the government and the JAAC. Protest leaders reiterated that demonstrations, public meetings and preparations for the proposed long march would continue until substantive progress was made on their constitutional, political and economic demands, while authorities maintained that security measures would remain in force to preserve public order.

Impact

The protests significantly disrupted daily life across Pakistan-occupied Kashmir, with repeated strikes, demonstrations and security operations affecting transportation, commerce and public services in several districts. Markets and businesses remained closed during periods of the unrest, while public transport services were suspended or operated on a limited basis in response to strike calls issued by the Jammu Kashmir Joint Awami Action Committee (JAAC).

The movement also affected the supply of essential commodities in parts of the territory. Residents and protest organisers reported shortages of food, fuel and medicines, alleging that security restrictions on highways disrupted commercial transportation into the region. Pakistani authorities denied imposing a blockade and stated that temporary disruptions resulted from measures introduced to maintain public order during the protests.

Educational institutions, commercial establishments and government offices experienced intermittent disruptions as demonstrations continued throughout June. Public gatherings, road closures and security checkpoints affected travel between districts, while authorities maintained an increased police and paramilitary presence in major towns including Muzaffarabad, Rawalakot, Bagh and Kotli.

The prolonged demonstrations also elevated constitutional reform and political representation to the forefront of public debate within Pakistan-administered Kashmir. Analysts observed that issues previously discussed primarily by political organisations became subjects of wider public mobilisation, contributing to one of the most sustained protest movements in the territory in recent years.

Media bias

As the movement expanded, sections of Pakistan's mainstream electronic media and pro-establishment commentators tried to frame the JKJAAC in security-centric terms, portraying it as a potential "anti-state actor." These claims, often presented without substantive evidence, tried to shift the public discourse away from issues of governance, economic hardship, and political accountability toward narratives centred on patriotism and national security.

Political analysis

Political analysts described the 2026 protests as a significant shift in the political landscape of Pakistan-occupied Kashmir, arguing that the movement had evolved beyond economic grievances into a broader campaign for constitutional reform and political representation. Commentators observed that while earlier protest movements in 2024 and 2025 had primarily focused on electricity tariffs, subsidies and taxation, the 2026 demonstrations centred on questions of governance, electoral representation and the constitutional relationship between Pakistan and the territory.

According to ThePrint, the movement represented an unprecedented challenge to Pakistan's administrative framework in the territory because its demands increasingly focused on constitutional amendments rather than solely economic concessions. Analysts noted that the Jammu Kashmir Joint Awami Action Committee (JAAC) had broadened its support base by bringing together traders, lawyers, transport workers, students, women and civil society organisations under a common political platform.

Several commentators observed that the continued participation of women, students and young people distinguished the protests from previous movements in the territory. Rather than remaining a campaign led primarily by traders' associations, the demonstrations expanded into a wider civil society movement encompassing multiple professional and social groups. Analysts suggested that this broader participation contributed to the protests' ability to continue despite the government's ban on the JAAC and the deployment of additional security forces.

Commentary published by several media organisations argued that the unrest exposed longstanding tensions over governance and political representation in Pakistan-administered Kashmir. The continuing demonstrations, coupled with allegations of restrictions on movement and shortages of essential commodities, were described as reflecting wider dissatisfaction among sections of the territory's population with existing constitutional and administrative arrangements.

Some analysts further suggested that the movement demonstrated a transition from issue-specific protests towards a sustained political mobilisation seeking institutional reform. They argued that the prominence of constitutional demands, together with calls for greater local representation and administrative accountability, differentiated the 2026 protests from previous waves of unrest in the territory.

See also

• 2024 Azad Kashmir protests
• 2025 Azad Kashmir protests
• Jammu Kashmir Joint Awami Action Committee
• Azad Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly
• Kashmir conflict