A Way Forward for AJK
Ishtiaq Ahmed
Bradford: The recent unrest in Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK) region under Pakistani administration has generated intense debate, with competing narratives seeking to define the nature and purpose of the protests.
However, any meaningful discussion must begin by recognising an important fact: the current movement is not a campaign for separation from Pakistan.
Rather, it is a manifestation of deep-rooted economic, social, and political grievances that have accumulated over time.
As with many public movements, different groups may attempt to use widespread dissatisfaction to advance unrelated political objectives. Such opportunistic efforts should not distract from the fundamental issues that have brought thousands of people onto the streets. At its core, the movement is driven by citizens demanding economic relief, greater political fairness, and accountable governance.
Peaceful protest against economic hardship, social injustice, and political imbalance is a cornerstone of any democratic society.
Attempts to portray these demonstrations as something other than legitimate expressions of public concern risk undermining democratic principles themselves.
In this context, the decision to designate the Joint Awami Action Committee (JAAC) as a terrorist organisation appears both inappropriate and counterproductive. Such a characterisation not only misrepresents the nature of the movement but also risks closing the door to constructive dialogue.
The protesters’ demands are neither radical nor ambiguous. They are calling for affordable electricity, arguing that the region generates substantial hydroelectric power while local consumers continue to bear disproportionately high costs.
They also seek the continuation of subsidies on essential commodities, particularly wheat flour, to ease the burden on ordinary households facing rising living costs.
Another major concern relates to political representation. Protesters have questioned the legitimacy of the twelve legislative seats reserved for Kashmiri refugees residing in Pakistan, arguing that the arrangement grants disproportionate influence to individuals who are not directly accountable to the electorate within the region.
They contend that this weakens democratic representation and undermines confidence in local institutions.
Equally significant are calls to curb elite privilege and reduce unnecessary government expenditure. Demonstrators are demanding an end to VIP culture and urging the government to redirect public resources towards education, healthcare, infrastructure, and other essential public services that directly benefit citizens.
Taken together, these demands cannot reasonably be interpreted as a rejection of Pakistan’s constitutional framework. On the contrary, they seek reforms within the existing system. Far from advocating independence, the protesters are asking the state to make its institutions more responsive, equitable, and accountable.
The government’s response has, unfortunately, deepened rather than eased public frustration. Failure to engage meaningfully with these concerns, coupled with inflammatory remarks by senior officials, has eroded trust at a time when reassurance and dialogue were most needed.
The extensive deployment of security forces against demonstrators has also proved counterproductive. Experience from around the world demonstrates that excessive force against civilians rarely resolves political disputes; instead, it often entrenches resentment and widens the gap between governments and the governed.
Similarly, internet shutdowns and communication restrictions have disrupted daily life and limited access to information without addressing the underlying causes of the unrest.
A sustainable resolution requires a change in approach.
First, the authorities should acknowledge that these demonstrations represent legitimate public grievances rather than an organised campaign for independence. Accurate recognition of the movement’s character is an essential first step towards restoring trust.
Second, the government should introduce a transparent and time-bound implementation plan to address concerns over electricity tariffs and the cost of essential commodities. While commitments have previously been announced, inconsistent implementation has repeatedly undermined public confidence.
Establishing an independent implementation commission, with representation from JAAC alongside government officials and independent experts, could help ensure that agreed measures are delivered effectively.
Third, a constitutional commission should be established to examine the issue of the twelve reserved legislative seats. Such a body should include representatives of Kashmiri refugees residing in Pakistan, JAAC, constitutional experts, and the governments of Pakistan and Azad Jammu and Kashmir.
Its purpose should be to determine whether the current arrangement fairly reflects democratic principles while safeguarding the rights of all affected communities.
Finally, restoring confidence requires restraint. The excessive use of force against protesters should cease immediately. Those who lost their lives during the unrest deserve to be treated with dignity and respect, and their families should receive appropriate compensation. Regardless of differing political views, they were citizens expressing grievances that merit engagement rather than condemnation.
Lasting peace cannot be achieved through coercion alone. It requires governments to listen, acknowledge legitimate concerns, and demonstrate through action that public voices matter. By embracing dialogue, meaningful reform, and accountable governance, Pakistan has an opportunity not only to defuse the current crisis but also to strengthen democratic institutions and public confidence in the region.
