When a government starts treating peaceful civilian protesters like violent criminals, you know its legal system has broken down. That is the reality unfolding in Pakistan-occupied Gilgit-Baltistan and Pakistan-occupied Jammu and Kashmir. During the 63rd session of the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva, Kashmiri human rights defender Javed Ahmad Beigh called out Islamabad for weaponizing national legislation. He demanded an immediate halt to the systemic abuse of anti-terror statutes against regional activists.
You do not need to look far to see how this mechanism operates. State authorities routinely lean on the Fourth Schedule of Pakistan's Anti-Terrorism Act of 1997. Instead of catching violent extremists, this provision targets community leaders, labor organizers, and political dissidents who dare to question official policies.
The Real Target Behind the Fourth Schedule
Take the case of Ehsan Ali, the chairman of the Awami Action Committee in PoGB. Alongside figures like Nusrat Hussain, Mehboob Wali, Nafees, and Mehar Ali, he found himself slapped with severe terror-related designations. Why? Because they mobilized citizens against controversial administrative decisions and economic hardships.
Authorities threw them behind bars for nearly two months under fraudulent accusations of inciting violence against the state. Even though some of these individuals secured temporary releases, the chilling effect remains. The state keeps the threat hanging over everyone else. Using counter-terrorism frameworks to stifle basic freedom of assembly turns the rule of law completely upside down.
Suppressing Local Resistance in PoGB and PoJK
Dissent in these regions is not a crime. It is a natural reaction to decades of political neglect, economic marginalization, and forced land grabs. Local populations face severe restrictions on free speech while watching their natural resources exploited without local consent.
When residents organize rallies or voice grievances about poor infrastructure and economic neglect, the establishment panics. Rather than addressing legitimate civic demands, authorities deploy heavy-handed policing tactics. They slap legal charges onto peaceful organizers to drain their resources, break their spirit, and frighten others into silence.
What the International Community Misses
Global media coverage often glosses over the institutional mechanisms used to control disputed territories. Western watchdogs frequently focus on high-profile national politics while ignoring the administrative creep at the local level. Laws designed to protect a nation from actual security threats are instead converted into administrative cudgels against political critics.
Beigh's intervention at the UNHRC serves as a blunt reminder that regional activists are paying a heavy price for speaking truth to power. Turning a blind eye to these tactics only encourages state overreach.
To shift this dynamic, international human rights organizations must scrutinize how local courts apply emergency and anti-terrorism statutes in contested zones. Activists need persistent global solidarity, legal backing, and direct diplomatic pressure placed on national governments to drop fabricated charges. Demand accountability from local administrations and refuse to let state-sponsored intimidation go unnoticed.
