Pakistan's 'Kashmir Solidarity Day' Paradox: Advocacy Abroad, Suppression At Home

(MENAFN- IANS) New Delhi: Every year on February 5, Pakistan marks 'Kashmir Solidarity Day' with rallies, speeches, diplomatic outreach, and coordinated media campaigns across capitals and international forums. Official statements invoke the language of human rights, self-determination, and moral responsibility. Yet behind this carefully curated global advocacy lies a striking paradox: while Pakistan positions itself as the principal defender of Kashmiris' rights abroad, it systematically suppresses political freedoms, dissent, and basic civil liberties within the territories under its own control.

This contradiction raises an uncomfortable but necessary question: can a State credibly champion human rights in Kashmir while denying those same rights at home?

Pakistan's 'Kashmir Solidarity Day' has evolved into a sophisticated political exercise. Embassies host seminars, diaspora groups organise protests, and digital campaigns flood social media platforms with emotionally charged narratives. The intent is clear to keep the Kashmir issue alive internationally and frame Pakistan as the moral stakeholder in a long-standing dispute.

However, much of this advocacy relies on selective storytelling. While allegations of rights violations in Jammu and Kashmir dominate speeches and placards, there is near total silence on the lived realities of people in Pakistan occupied regions. This selective outrage undermines the ethical foundation of Pakistan's advocacy and weakens its credibility in the eyes of neutral observers.

The most glaring omission in Pakistan's Kashmir narrative concerns Pakistan-occupied Jammu and Kashmir (PoJK) and Gilgit Baltistan. Despite being integral to the Kashmir dispute, these regions remain politically marginalised.

Gilgit Baltistan, home to over two million people, lacks constitutional status within Pakistan. Its residents cannot vote in Pakistan's national elections, have limited legislative authority, and possess no meaningful representation in the country's decision-making structures. Local political activists demanding constitutional rights have repeatedly faced arrests, surveillance, and restrictions on assembly.

In PoJK, political expression is tightly controlled through legal mechanisms that criminalise dissent. Any advocacy that challenges Pakistan's official position on Kashmir or calls for greater autonomy is often met with intimidation or prosecution. Independent journalism remains constrained, and protests critical of Islamabad's policies are frequently curtailed.

The irony is difficult to ignore: while Pakistan demands a plebiscite and freedom of expression for Kashmiris elsewhere, it denies both to Kashmiris under its own administration.

Pakistan often justifies internal repression in PoJK and Gilgit Baltistan on grounds of national security. Laws restricting speech, assembly, and political organisation are defended as necessary to preserve territorial integrity. Yet these justifications mirror the very arguments Pakistan condemns when used by others.

International human rights organisations have repeatedly flagged concerns about enforced disappearances, restrictions on media, and the targetting of activists in these regions. However, these reports rarely find mention during 'Kashmir Solidarity Day' events, where the narrative remains carefully curated and externally focused.

In global diplomacy, moral authority matters. States that successfully advocate for human rights abroad are usually those that demonstrate consistency at home. Pakistan's selective human rights discourse has increasingly drawn scrutiny from international analysts, journalists, and policymakers who question whether 'Kashmir Solidarity Day' is about genuine concern for Kashmiris or political posturing.

This credibility gap is particularly visible in multilateral forums, where Pakistan's claims are often met with calls for introspection regarding its own governance record. Advocacy that ignores internal contradictions risks being dismissed as performative rather than principled.

True solidarity with Kashmir cannot be symbolic or selective. It requires a commitment to universal rights regardless of geography or political convenience. If Pakistan wishes to be taken seriously as a stakeholder in Kashmir's future, it must begin by addressing democratic deficits within its administered regions.

Granting constitutional status to Gilgit Baltistan, ensuring freedom of expression in PoJK, protecting journalists and activists, and allowing genuine political pluralism would not weaken Pakistan's position on Kashmir. On the contrary, such steps would strengthen its moral standing and demonstrate sincerity.

'Kashmir Solidarity Day', as currently observed, reflects a paradox that Pakistan can no longer afford to ignore. Advocacy abroad cannot substitute for accountability at home. The international community, increasingly attuned to inconsistencies in human rights narratives, is unlikely to be persuaded by slogans alone.

Real solidarity with Kashmiris on both sides of the Line of Control demands consistency, introspection, and reform. Until then, February 5 will remain less a day of solidarity and more a reminder of a credibility gap that continues to widen.

(The author is the National Chairman of Muslim Students Organisation of India. Views expressed are personal)

MENAFN05022026000231011071ID1110699828