Was Pakistan's first PM assassinated over Kashmir?

On October 16, 1951, Pakistan’s first Prime Minister, Liaquat Ali Khan, was addressing a Muslim League gathering at Company Bagh in Rawalpindi. After he said “Baraadaraan-e-Millat,” meaning “brothers of the nation,” two bullets struck him. He was 56 years old.

The shooter was Said Akbar, an Afghan man seated near the dais. He used a German-made 9mm Walther P38 pistol. Police Inspector Mohammad Shah fired six shots at him, five of which hit. Muslim League members reportedly stabbed the wounded gunman with spears. Liaquat was taken to the Combined Military Hospital but died from his injuries.

The killing became Pakistan’s first major political assassination and remains unresolved. One leading explanation links it to resentment over the Kashmir ceasefire, which Liaquat supported after the 1947-48 war. Other possibilities include a wider conspiracy or anger over Liaquat’s lifestyle and his wife Ra’ana’s refusal to observe purdah.

Said Akbar belonged to the Zadran tribe in present-day Afghanistan’s Khost region. He and his brother Mazrak Zadran opposed King Mohammad Zahir Shah’s monarchy before surrendering to British authorities in North Waziristan in January 1947. After Partition, Akbar settled in Abbottabad and received a monthly allowance from Pakistani authorities.

His access to Liaquat’s gathering is a central mystery. A 2015 Dawn report said Akbar was seated in an area reserved for Criminal Investigation Department officers, close to the prime minister’s dais. He reportedly brought his 11-year-old son, Dilawar Khan, who witnessed the chaos after the shooting. Akbar used a Walther P38 pistol bought from a mujahid returning from Kashmir.

The article does not establish who arranged Akbar’s position or whether he had accomplices. Police killed him immediately after the shots, preventing questioning. That lost opportunity left investigators unable to determine how he entered the security-designated area or why he targeted Liaquat.

The ceasefire ended active fighting in the first India-Pakistan war over Jammu and Kashmir, fought in 1947-48 after Partition. It took effect on January 1, 1949, through UN mediation. The fighting stopped, but the Kashmir dispute continued, leaving the issue politically sensitive in Pakistan.

Liaquat Ali Khan was prime minister when the ceasefire took effect. The article identifies resentment over his handling of the agreement as one of the main motives proposed after decades of investigation. Said Akbar’s pistol had reportedly been purchased from a mujahid who had returned from Kashmir, adding a connection between the weapon and the conflict.

However, the ceasefire link is not proven. Akbar was killed before police could question him. Other possibilities remained, including a broader conspiracy and resentment of Liaquat’s lifestyle or Ra’ana’s refusal to observe purdah. The assassination’s motive and possible accomplices remain unresolved.

The 1947-48 war over Jammu and Kashmir ended in a UN-mediated ceasefire on January 1, 1949. According to the article, fighting stopped, but the dispute continued. Sections of Pakistan’s military and tribal mujahid who had infiltrated Kashmir were dissatisfied with that outcome.

The article connects this dissatisfaction to the fact that a ceasefire halted military action without resolving the political dispute. Liaquat Ali Khan had handled the ceasefire as prime minister. One proposed motive for his assassination was therefore resentment toward his role in accepting or managing the agreement. The article does not identify a single organized opposition movement.

It also does not provide detailed statements from the military officers or tribal fighters explaining their objections. Their dissatisfaction is presented as an important background possibility, not conclusive proof of responsibility. Because Said Akbar was killed immediately, investigators lost the chance to test whether this resentment directly motivated him or involved others.

The Kashmir ceasefire took effect on January 1, 1949. Liaquat Ali Khan was assassinated on October 16, 1951. Therefore, the shooting occurred nearly three years after the ceasefire, specifically about two years and nine months later.

This timing matters because the ceasefire was not a new event when Liaquat died. It had already stopped the 1947-48 India-Pakistan war for almost three years. Yet the Kashmir dispute continued, and sections of Pakistan’s military and tribal mujahid remained dissatisfied with the outcome.

That continuing resentment is why investigators considered the ceasefire a possible motive despite the time gap. The article does not prove that the delay weakened or confirmed the connection. Since police killed Said Akbar immediately, they could not ask whether his alleged resentment had persisted or whether someone else directed the attack.

Said Akbar was shot dead by police immediately after firing at Liaquat Ali Khan. Police Inspector Mohammad Shah fired six shots, five of which struck Akbar. Muslim League members reportedly stabbed the wounded gunman with spears. The entire confrontation unfolded within seconds.

The immediate consequence was the loss of a living suspect. Investigators could not ask Akbar why he attacked Liaquat, who supplied or encouraged him, or whether he acted alone. They also could not question him about the Walther P38 pistol or his reported seat in an area reserved for Criminal Investigation Department officers.

That missing testimony helped keep the assassination unresolved for decades. Investigators proposed resentment over the Kashmir ceasefire, a wider conspiracy, and personal resentment involving Liaquat’s lifestyle and Ra’ana’s refusal to observe purdah. None could be tested directly against Akbar’s own explanation. His son later published an investigation in 2025.

Partition created India and Pakistan in August 1947, and the two countries soon fought their first war over Jammu and Kashmir in 1947-48. A UN-mediated ceasefire stopped the fighting on January 1, 1949, but the dispute continued. That unresolved conflict became lasting political background for Liaquat’s assassination.

The article gives one clear mechanism: fighting over Kashmir produced military and tribal involvement, while the ceasefire halted operations without settling the disagreement. Sections of Pakistan’s military and tribal mujahid were dissatisfied. Investigators later considered resentment over Liaquat’s handling of the ceasefire as a possible motive for his killing.

The source does not explain the deeper legal or political reasons why Partition produced competing claims to Jammu and Kashmir. Based only on the article, the lasting dispute began because India and Pakistan fought over the territory and continued disagreeing after the ceasefire. The assassination’s connection to that dispute remains unproven.