by: Yasir Irshad
The three-year-old Kashmiri people’s movement is moving towards a new and very important battle on June 9, 2026. A call for a long march towards Muzaffarabad on June 9 has been given against the non-implementation of the agreement reached with the government after a long lockdown from September 29 to October 4 last year, and preparations are underway with enthusiasm. No significant progress could be made in the talks with the government on May 30, after which the Joint Committee has announced to maintain the call for a long march, while government representatives have indicated a deadlock in the talks and possibly holding a decisive round of talks before June 9. Like in the past, but on a much larger scale, a series of conferences are being held to prepare for the long march. Not only is the number of people joining these conferences higher than in the past, but conferences are being held in many areas and villages where no such activity has been possible in the last three years. In this way, the movement is spreading to areas that were not part of the movement in a regular and organized manner.
This long march and the call for protests have also thrown the elections to be held in Kashmir in the next few months into uncertainty. The participation and enthusiasm of the people in the activities organized for the preparation of the long march on June 9 are so high that the parties of the ruling classes have not yet dared to go out openly to the people. A divisive debate regarding the elections began within the movement when some people associated with the movement and some nationalists announced their intention to contest the elections a few months ago. Initially, the Joint Committee, after opposing these individuals, presented an eight-point charter of demands for electoral reforms and announced that the committee would have no objection if the elections were held while ensuring the implementation of the committee’s recognized demands and the proposed electoral reforms.
There are two different positions on the question of elections. On the one hand, different parties and individuals have announced to participate in or boycott the elections in view of their own political objectives. On the other hand, the Awami Action Committee is busy preparing for a long march, rejecting the elections until the movement’s recognized demands and electoral reforms are implemented. A bitter and heated debate continued between the two different decisions taken on these two different grounds and the people with the two different positions that emerged. Most of the content of this debate is very superficial and in some cases based on personal character assassination and verbal abuse, the importance of which is less than a stinking pile of filth. Since in today’s era there is such a technique that you can make effective use of waste by getting energy from it, but still the entire human race is helpless in discovering a technique that can create something useful from this pile of character assassination and filth of verbal abuse created by these great resistance and revolutionary minds. Therefore, we are also forced to leave this garbage as food for some pitiful and pitiful minds and completely ignore it.
Thousands of millions of people and youth who are taking forward the public movement free from all kinds of prejudices and group interests are certainly trying to see and understand the question of elections from the perspective of the collective interest of the movement. The arguments of those who announced to fight elections are that we should not leave the electoral field empty for the rulers. Some people conclude from the rise and fall of the resistance power of the Hurriyat Conference in Indian occupied Kashmir that the public movement should not be limited to protests only, but fighting elections is absolutely necessary to reach the assembly. Some groups have rejected any possibility of any major change in the so-called “free” Kashmir in order to justify contesting the elections. Some people say that if the committee goes to make a revolution on June 9, we will be at the forefront, otherwise we will contest the elections anyway.
Apparently, there is no big difference between the stance of those contesting the elections and the stance of the committee. The committee’s stance is that the implementation of the accepted demands and electoral reforms should be ensured before the elections, and for this, the committee has announced a long march on June 9. It is necessary that all those associated with the movement should leave all other activities and prepare for the long march, that is, those contesting the elections should also declare their election campaigns and fully support and endorse the committee’s decision. On the other hand, those contesting the elections have not yet openly opposed this decision of the committee and have in one way or another supported the call for June 9 by calling off their election campaigns.
A fundamental reason behind this controversy is that these people had announced their participation in the elections even before the committee’s stance on the elections was revealed. From the committee’s point of view, these announcements are tantamount to creating a split in the movement at a time when the committee has already announced preparations for a very important and major battle against the government. On the other hand, the committee, being the leadership of the movement, also considers these announcements as a challenge for itself. That is, if people with more or less influence in each area do not abide by the decisions and discipline of the Joint Committee, then not only the committee as the leadership will be completely destroyed.
The end of the rote may begin, or rather the collective nature of the movement may end. The third important factor is that most of the people who have announced their participation in the elections are the same people who have made unsuccessful attempts to completely or partially replace the current committee by forming different alliances on different occasions during the last three years. The differences with the committee and the objections to the committee of these groups have been there for the last three years, the intensity of which has been increasing and decreasing. According to one of these groups, the so-called “free” Kashmir is part of a disputed and divided state and the decision of the state will be taken jointly and that the end of the imperialist occupation is possible only when a movement for freedom emerges simultaneously in every part of the state. The establishment of a people’s rule in the so-called “free” Kashmir means the end of the occupation of the Pakistani state, but even if the occupation of the Pakistani state is ended from this part only, India will occupy it, so it would be foolish to do so. The final scenario is that if capitalism is abolished from the subcontinent, such a change in Kashmir is possible. Therefore, in the current circumstances, contesting elections is the only way out. This group has not only rejected every possibility of any major change and accepted the Pakistani state’s narrative as the only truth, but has also adopted it as a position that if Pakistan’s army leaves the so-called “free” Kashmir, India will occupy it, but it is also using it as an argument to scare people with revolution. Generally speaking, there are a few things in common in the arguments and thoughts of all the groups and individuals contesting elections. The rise of the people’s movement and the immense acceptance of resistance politics among the people have created an opportunistic hope in all of them to reach parliament and become great leaders. All those contesting elections are proving themselves to be sympathetic to the people, honest, advocates of public rights and adhere to the principles of spending the funds received by parliamentary members through public committees, compared to the corrupt politicians present. Some, while justifying their election campaign before the public, have even said that we will show these rulers how the system is run. All are spreading the misconception of considering the organic crisis of this system as an administrative crisis. It has historically been the tragedy of reformism that it believes that if those running the system are not corrupt, the system can be fixed. In other words, the real cause of all problems is not the structure of the system and its historical obsolescence, but the corruption and mismanagement of those running it. It is true that one of the reasons why the problems in this system are more serious is the rampant corruption of the rulers and the bureaucracy. But the real question is, does corruption arise from the structure and obsolescence of this system or from the corrupt nature and greed of those running it? The thinking of our great resistance fighters who are contesting elections seems to suggest that all corruption stems from the personal nature and greed of the rulers of this system, and if the current corrupt rulers were replaced by someone as honest as them, things could improve, if not completely, then to a great extent. When asked the same thing, the answer will certainly be that no, no, we do not mean this at all. We know that the capitalist system is the root of the real problems, but the corruption of those who run it is also a problem in its own right. You cannot deny it. Our real struggle is for the complete abolition of this system, but it is a very long one. Then, even this system cannot be changed to the extent of Kashmir because India will occupy it. Therefore, until the conditions are completely favorable for such a change, we are talking about what is possible. If real representatives of the people go to the assembly, then at least the resources that these rulers loot can be spent for the welfare of the people. And then our real purpose of going to the assembly is to carry forward the fight for this real change on a large scale, which is not possible because India will occupy it. And so on. The Joint Committee is at least ahead of them on the question of elections because the Committee has presented a Charter of Demands for the implementation of the recognized demands and electoral reforms to make the question of elections the center and axis of public resistance. Although whether the proposed electoral reforms are possible to some extent or not and to what extent will the role of the elected assembly after these reforms be people-friendly or not? These questions are in their place. But the Joint Committee, realizing its responsibility to take the movement forward, rightly understands that allowing this electoral drama of the rulers to take place despite and ignoring the promises of the rulers would be extremely dangerous for the movement. Despite all the weaknesses and shortcomings of the Joint Committee, the criticism of the Committee’s detractors and critics, all these groups during the last three years and even now can be considered as criticism made on biased grounds. In practice, these groups always seem to be behind the Committee and on the right in the language of political terminology. He announced his candidacy for the elections even before the official date of the elections was announced, and on this basis, the committee’s criticism of him is somewhat justified, as he once again tried to divide the movement while maintaining his position, but also to provide legitimacy to the elections.
The ruling classes were supported to some extent in the elections. An argument is also being given that the committee is a separate forum and they have their own separate parties, so their decision to contest the elections or not cannot be bound by any decision of the Joint Committee. This is a hundred percent correct argument, but it is a blatant hypocrisy and a lie because so far none of them have announced to participate in the elections as a candidate of their party or organization, rather initially some people have formally announced to contest the elections as nominated candidates of their regional action committees and some later indirectly with the support of the committees as resistance fighters. The Joint Committee is being criticized for opposing our democratic rights. At a time when the Joint Committee has announced the preparation of a major fight to implement the recognized demands of the movement, under what democratic principle can it be allowed that some people in the ranks of the movement should spread ambiguities among the people by promoting their election campaign instead of this fight? All the objections are based on the worst group opportunism. The Joint Committee is criticized with great force that the Committee does not carry out the revolution, if the Committee carries out the revolution, we will be ahead of everyone, etc. etc. This criticism is also very effective for the common simple-minded people and workers, but if you think about it, it is a very crude criticism that is used only to provide legitimacy to their group decisions. It is true that the Committee does not have an immediate program of revolution, but what is the program of those who demand an immediate revolution from the Committee? If the criticism of the committee for not holding an immediate revolution is being used to justify the elections and these groups do not have an immediate program of revolution themselves, then it is clear that this argument and the rhetoric of revolution are being used to cover up their own group objectives. The committee is reluctant to hold a revolution, is acting expediently, so the loud claimants of revolution should try to advance the fight by presenting a program of the revolution’s fight. But instead of doing so, while rejecting the objective possibilities of revolution, the writ of revolution is being used to justify their decisions to participate in the elections during a major fight of the movement. This is not supporting the duty of the revolution, but only covering up deviation from the revolution through the most provocative noise of the revolution. Recently, the rulers held an all-party conference whose declaration was that a parallel setup in the name of the rights movement is unacceptable. What is this collective confession of the rulers pointing towards? This is clearly an indication of the power of the popular movement and its revolutionary potential. This means that the movement has the potential to establish a revolutionary government, the fear of which has gripped the nerves of the rulers. This is an acknowledgement of the objective power of the movement, which is being expressed in the form of fear by the enemy classes. The obstacles, difficulties and dangers standing in the way of the movement’s success, as well as the subjective weaknesses of the movement, require serious discussion, but despite all this, the power of the movement and its revolutionary potential have become as clear as day to all except the pessimists. From the perspective of the popular movement, this decision is also correct because the sham of elections is a necessity and compulsion of the rulers and their exploitative class rule system. The sole purpose of holding highly democratic and transparent elections in this system is to maintain the impression of a government being re-elected by the people’s votes after a fixed period. Should the exploitation and plunder of this system be justified by replacing one group of plundering rulers with another? In this situation, is it right to advance the popular movement on the occasion of elections or is it right to become a part of this electoral pretense of the rulers while completely ignoring the question of implementing the recognized demands of the movement? Is it necessary to maintain the collectiveness of the movement or to split it in view of one’s own group interests? These are the most basic questions in view of which one needs to take a stand on the question of elections. Is the process of getting some of one’s demands accepted through resistance struggle progressive or is it to participate in elections while abandoning the struggle? Is it resistance to further expose and belittle the anti-people character of the ruling class and this system in front of the people through a new battle of struggle or is it to leave this battle incomplete and beat the drum of elections? The surprising thing is that the advocates of resistance are giving more priority to the election campaign than to organize the resistance movement. In their opinion, organizing a resistance movement of the people against the electoral hypocrisy of the rulers, their looting, corruption and exploitation at the exact time of the elections is harmful for the revolutionary workers, while running an election campaign in the style of the rulers is beneficial for the resistance politics. To prevent and control all this chaos to some extent, the committee has also formulated some other regulations such as not using the name of the committee against those who are contesting the elections. The committee is currently leading the movement and according to the general rule of survival, it can formulate any kind of regulations to block the way of its opponents in order to maintain its control over the movement. After the opposition of the committee, all these groups were They were forced to retreat from the electoral process to some extent, which proves that their policy was wrong. In the current state of the movement, none of these groups has the courage and strength to go completely against the committee. All these groups were trying to run their election campaigns in the name of the committee or the movement in an opportunistic manner and due to their weakness, they have been forced to retreat temporarily, but they can never completely abandon this group approach. Every political trend that disagrees with the policies of the committee will have to win the majority of the people to their position. There is no other way. According to some circles, this move of the committee may lead to the possibility that emergency may be imposed in Kashmir using the deterioration of the situation as an excuse and the entire democratic system may be destroyed. Therefore, an attempt is being made to say in covert words that the committee should refrain from holding any kind of protest on the occasion of the elections. Such a possible situation is being described as fraught with fears of a repeat of the abrogation of the special status of Indian-occupied Kashmir on August 5, 2019. These fears and comments on it are also interesting because their clear meaning is that the committee should not take any step that is likely to bring about any major positive or negative change in the current situation. In other words, it is being said that if the movement has to be stopped or pushed back in order to maintain the status quo, then the committee should do so. It is true that revolutionaries always prefer a lame democracy to any type of authoritarian system of rule. But the real reason for this preference is those small democratic rights that are necessary to organize any resistance or popular movement and there is no other reason than that, since in capitalism, whether the mode of rule is democratic or authoritarian, the rule of capital over labor remains in both cases. This means that democracy is not preferable in this system because through this democracy and the parliamentary electoral system, the working class will become rulers and establish their collective control over all resources, and thus their salvation will be possible. If this were possible, it would have happened decades, if not centuries, in other countries like Britain and France, which laid the foundation for the system of parliamentary democracy. But what could be a more stupid argument than that the popular movement should not move forward because its progress could threaten this lame democracy? What will happen after the end of this lame democracy? Is emergency the only alternative? Will the millions of active people of Kashmir, who have created a new great history of struggle for their fundamental rights for three years, silently accept the imposition of this emergency and give up their fight? Is it not possible that the bloodbath like the emergency imposed by the rulers will make the path of an alternative people’s revolutionary government clear to the people and will remove all the so-called legal, constitutional and moral obstacles in its path? Although the implementation of the emergency is not highly likely, if it is even discussed as a hypothesis, then considering the current situation of the movement, any such government action can give rise to several revolutionary possibilities. The most important aspect of this discussion is that if any such situations arise, the entire responsibility for them lies with the rulers. After making an agreement in October 2025 to implement all the recognized demands within ninety days, the rulers have broken the worst promise and despite the passage of eight months, no progress has been made in this regard. The call for a long march was given about three months ago and despite the deadline of ensuring implementation through negotiations by May 31, the rulers have not shown seriousness on this issue. Despite all this criminal negligence of the rulers, the attitude of all those who hold the Joint Committee responsible for any such possible concern or raise any kind of question to it is extremely regrettable. All such people are actually playing the role of appointees of the rulers, which is not only regrettable but also condemnable. The call for the long march on June 9 has now become a serious problem for the ruling classes. The march and sit-in of millions of people from all over Kashmir towards Muzaffarabad has become a nightmare for the rulers also because twice before the people were stopped at Kohala, but this time the committee has clearly announced that there will be no halt anywhere on the way and all the convoys will go straight to Muzaffarabad. The presence of many times more enthusiasm in the preparations for the march than in the past and the arrival of such a large number of people in Muzaffarabad can lead to a dramatic change in the situation. The situation of conflict and bloodshed arising from the march of millions of people towards Muzaffarabad and the measures taken by the state to stop the march along the way could lead to uncontrolled public agitation. Even if no such untoward incident occurs, the presence of a large number of people in power in the city will change the balance of power in favor of the people, which will greatly increase the difficulties for the rulers and to some extent the committee as well, since there is intense anger and resentment among the people and the youth due to the continuous misdeeds of the rulers. That is why it is visible It is showing that the rulers are busy in trying to settle matters with the committee as soon as possible and to withdraw the June 9 call. There is a rift within the ruling classes, especially regarding the abolition of the 12 seats of refugees residing in Pakistan. The PML-N is trying to ensure that the seats do not end, while the Pakistan Peoples Party wants these seats to end under the pressure of the movement. Out of the total 12, 9 are in Punjab, one in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and two in different areas of Sindh and Balochistan. Thus, the 9 seats in Punjab are mostly given to the PML-N, so the PPP is in favor of eliminating these seats in view of its group interests. The concerns about the reduction in the share of the loot have increased so much that Bilawal Bhutto, during his speech at the party’s election rally in Gilgit, has even proposed the abolition of the Ministry of Kashmir Affairs and Gilgit-Baltistan and the transfer of all powers to the assemblies of Gilgit and Muzaffarabad. In fact, behind these hypocritical statements is not only the sorrow of not getting a government in GB and Kashmir, but also the proposals in the 28th Amendment to take Karachi and Gwadar under direct federal control, which, if implemented, the PPP fears losing the wealth looted from Pakistan’s largest commercial and industrial city like Karachi. The world of PPP’s loot is that during the last eighteen years of government in Sindh, about seven and a half thousand billion rupees were allocated for development funds, but despite this, not only the people of interior Sindh are deprived of all basic facilities, but the people of Karachi city are also forced to live a life worse than hell due to the dilapidation of other facilities like roads, water, electricity and drainage. All these development funds were looted and luxuries by the PPP rulers, and today these looting rulers are trying to become hypocritical sympathizers of Kashmiris. The split of rulers is also an obstacle in the path of progress in this matter. Although a false justification for retaining these seats is also given that they are related to the freedom movement. There are reports that an All Parties Conference will be held on June 5 to retain these seats. Through the All Parties Conference, on the one hand, an attempt will be made to revive the dead horses of all those parties and leaders who have been completely rejected by the movement and on the other hand, these parties will be presented as an alternative to the committee and the people. The Revolutionary Communist Party completely rejects the holding of this All Parties Conference, which has no political and moral justification because during the last three years, millions of working people of Kashmir have declared their non-representation against them from the platform of the movement and the committee. These parties do not represent anyone except the small groups of rulers and their masters, especially they do not represent even a small section of the working people of Kashmir. Therefore, at this crucial juncture of the movement, we strongly condemn the nefarious conspiracy to make these parties a partner in the demands of the movement with the help of the imperialist rulers. It is more appropriate to call it not an All Parties Conference but an All Parties Conspiracy against the movement. Objectively speaking, the people of Kashmir are ready to make any sacrifice for a complete revolutionary change. During the previous marches too, the people defeated the brutal oppression of the state and ensured the success of various stages of the movement. The immense courage of the people and the revolutionary spirit of making all kinds of sacrifices for the achievement of their rights are the real driving force of the movement. At least two to three times in three years, such a situation had arisen where the state was hanging in the air and power was scattered on the streets. But due to the lack of leadership from an organized revolutionary party equipped with revolutionary ideas, the system could not be changed. The Committee is not a revolutionary party, nor can it be a substitute for a revolutionary party. Despite all its shortcomings and weaknesses, the Committee has been quite successful in keeping the people united and united, albeit at a very slow pace, and in advancing the movement. Lacking the ideology of revolutionary change, the Committee has no other option but to continue the struggle to gradually achieve something within the same system. Due to the lack of understanding of the dynamics and structure of the capitalist system, no steps are being taken to connect the movement with the working class of Pakistan, and the limitation of the movement to a small region is a major objective weakness that is increasing its subjective weaknesses. The biggest crisis of the movement at the moment is the crisis of an organized revolutionary party and leadership, including ideology and a revolutionary scientific program. All those political workers who have serious concerns about the future of the movement and the objections to the role of the committee should ignore all superficial discussions, including whether or not to participate in the elections, and play their role in building a revolutionary party by learning the scientific theories of socialism and communism. The most important and serious question regarding the movement is how long it will be able to maintain its current momentum. The structure of any movement consists of two important elements, whose mutual, two-way dialectical relationship and two-way influence play a fundamental role in moving the entire process forward. The first element is the struggle of the working class against the problems and atrocities created by the prevailing system in any region.
Share this content:
