THROUGH THE LOOKING GLASS: THE TWO KASHMIRS AND THE BATTLE FOR TRUTH

It is a familiar spectacle: whenever security forces in Jammu and Kashmir initiate an anti-terrorism operation, the propaganda machinery within Pakistani establishment springs into action. The state run media, military spokespersons and their international mouthpieces often label such operations as massacres, painting them in the darkest possible hues in the global forum. This chorus is amplified to drown out facts and to mobilise international opinion against India. Yet, when one peers beyond this orchestrated outrage and examines the ground realities, a different story emerges; one that exposes a profound divide not just in narratives but in the very fabric of governance and justice across the two Kashmirs.

Jammu and Kashmir has always been an integral part of India’s constitutional framework, governed by laws that protect civil liberties and ensure procedural justice. Even before the revocation of Article 370, the region was subject to the proper implementation of the relevant Penal Code and the Code of Criminal Procedure, which provided a legal foundation for all security and administrative actions. The presence of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court, along with the Supreme Court of India, created a robust system of judicial oversight that ensured every detention or security measure was open to scrutiny. This enduring legal framework meant that despite the challenges posed by militancy and unrest, the rule of law remained a central principle, guaranteeing that government actions had to follow established legal norms and that citizens’ rights were protected under the constitution.

The procedures offered by these laws are not mere formalities. In every encounter or cordon and search operation, militants are offered chances to surrender, not simply as tactical gestures but as a reflection of the Article 21, a constitutional guarantee of the right to life even for those who have taken up arms against the state. This policy of surrender underscores an ethos of restraint and reintegration. Security forces work alongside local police, whose role is not cosmetic but integral. The police ensure that operations are properly documented and supervised under standard operating procedures. Civilian harm is minimized and every action is scrutinized; First Information Reports are filed for every encounter.

What sets these procedures apart is their transparency. Following each encounter, a magisterial inquiry under the Code of Criminal Procedure is mandatory. These are not secretive investigations; inquiries are announced publicly, often in newspapers and the process invites witness statements from the community. This constant vigilance makes Jammu and Kashmir a model of balancing security imperatives with civilian rights. The rule of law is not suspended even during times of conflict. For all its challenges, Jammu and Kashmirs system insists on accountability as non-negotiable.

Across the Line of Control, a very different reality prevails in Pakistan occupied Jammu and Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan. Here, the region operates under the heavy hand of Pakistan’s deep state, which comprises its military and intelligence agencies. While these areas are styled as “Azad”, their autonomy is more fiction than fact. Civilian institutions, including local legislatures and courts, exist largely for show; substantive authority rests with the Inter-Services Intelligence and the military apparatus.

Justice in Pakistan occupied Jammu and Kashmir is not a lived reality for most residents. The deep state’s penchant for keeping order means laws are wielded as instruments of repression. Human rights violations are neither exceptional nor aberrant but routine and systemic. Enforced disappearances, the vanishing of activists, journalists and dissenting voices, occur with chilling regularity. Criticism, whether in the form of street protests or newspaper articles, often provoke swift and brutal reprisals. Those labelled as “anti-state” risk being abducted by intelligence agencies, their fate concealed from families and the public. In many cases, bodies resurface showing evidence of torture but no magisterial inquiries are conducted. The legal edifice in Pakistan occupied Jammu and Kashmir offers scant protection. The Hydrocarbon Law, the Anti-Terrorism Act and other statutes serve not to check the excesses of power but to enable them. Police rarely investigate abuses honestly, let alone subject perpetrators within the state apparatus to scrutiny. Judicial challenges, if permitted, are stymied through opaque military tribunals. The general public’s avenues for redress are constricted to the point of nonexistence.

The standard operating procedures followed during counter terrorism operations in Jammu and Kashmir ensure not just efficiency but legality. Cordons are set up with announcements through loudspeakers inviting surrender. Families are sometimes brought in to persuade militants to lay down arms. Amnesty schemes are well publicized and many have taken advantage of rehabilitation packages. Even after operations are concluded, the magisterial inquiries investigate the circumstances of death, ensuring every bullet fired is accounted for.

In Pakistan occupied Jammu and Kashmir, by contrast, the security apparatus is judge, jury and, too often, executioner. Dissenters are dealt with harshly and the judiciary is powerless to intervene. The absence of magisterial inquiries means there is no check on the authorities responsible for extrajudicial killings. Journalists and activists who document abuses do so at immense personal risk and, more often than not, face abduction, torture or enforced disappearances. Media is tightly censored; stories of resource exploitation or military excess seldom see the light of day.

The consequences of this deep-seated injustice are now playing out in the form of large-scale protests in Pakistan occupied Jammu and Kashmir. These are not isolated outbursts but widespread eruptions spanning Muzaffarabad, Mirpur and Gilgit-Baltistan. What began as anger over economic mismanagement and denial of civil rights has crystallized into outrage over human rights violations. Protesters, including lawyers, students and local traders, have taken to the streets demanding an end to enforced disappearances and extrajudicial killings, seeking genuine autonomy and the restoration of civic freedoms. Their slogans reflect a yearning for transparency and accountability that remain elusive under Pakistan’s deep state. Security forces have routinely responded with violence: firing on crowds, detaining activists and, in some cases, clamping down on internet access. The world, unfortunately, remains largely silent.

The roots of these protests lie in the denial of basic procedural justice. Residents of Pakistan occupied Jammu and Kashmir realize that what they lack is not just freedom to express dissent but the structural protection of their rights; the kind witnessed across the border in Jammu and Kashmir, where every death in an encounter, every complaint of excess, is investigated and debated publicly.

It is ironic, then, that Pakistani establishments persist in labelling every anti-terrorism operation in Jammu and Kashmir as a massacre. The reality is much more complex and, in truth, exposes the hollowness of such propaganda. Jammu and Kashmir continues to face challenges but atrocities are exceptions subjected to scrutiny and correction, not the norm. The existence of open courts, independent media and civil liberties organizations ensures that genuine grievances have a platform.

In PoJK, the machinery of state not only perpetrates abuses but maintains silence through fear. Media outlets toe the official line, opposition is crushed and international oversight is rebuffed through orchestrated denials. The Pakistani narrative serves as a smokescreen to obscure the reality of life under the deep state but for the residents of Pakistan occupied Jammu and Kashmir, the truth is undeniable and increasingly intolerable.

The divide between Jammu and Kashmir and Pakistan occupied Jammu and Kashmir, then, is more than geographical; it is a chasm of accountability, legality and justice. Where Jammu and Kashmir operates under the visible and constant supervision of courts and rule of law, PoJK remains in the grip of unchecked power. The ongoing protests in Pakistan occupied Jammu and Kashmir offer a glimmer of hope that the demands for transparency and rights will someday shake the foundations of Pakistan’s deep state. For now, the contrast between the two regions stands as a testament to the resilience of legal norms in one Kashmir and their tragic absence in the other. It is a tale that deserves global attention, not just for its moral dimensions, but for what it portends for the future of human rights in South Asia.