There can be no objection to the demand that the people of Azad Kashmir should receive their due rights. Such rights must be protected and strengthened. The question, however, is whether the method currently being employed in the name of those rights is justified.
A fundamental question to the fore: why is it that almost every region of Pakistan that carries strategic significance is simultaneously witnessing unrest and agitation under the banner of rights and grievances? Is this merely a coincidence, or is there a degree of orchestration behind it?
The Kashmir Action Committee presented 38 demands. It is being claimed by the AJK government that 35 of those demands have already been accepted. If that is indeed the case, one must ask whether there remains any reasonable justification for continuing strikes and creating an atmosphere of instability.
A more reasonable demand would be the reduction of unnecessary government expenditures and the downsizing of an oversized administrative structure.
Consider the issue of electricity. In Azad Kashmir, electricity is available at rates ranging from three to seven rupees per unit. In the rest of Pakistan, consumers are paying many times more, to the extent that electricity bills have become a source of widespread public distress. Across the country, citizens are struggling with excessive tariffs, billing disputes, and uncertainty surrounding solar energy policies. Yet despite enjoying some of the lowest electricity rates in the country, protests continue in Azad Kashmir.
The finances of Azad Kashmir also need to be looked at carefully. Its annual domestic revenue is approximately Rs60 billion, while its budget exceeds Rs300 billion. The obvious question is: where does the additional Rs240 billion come from? The answer is straightforward. It comes from the federal government.
Demands for tax relief may be understandable, but those making such demands must also explain how the budget will be financed and how salaries and public expenditures will be paid. According to available figures, the abolition of taxes would reduce Azad Kashmir’s annual revenue to around Rs15 billion, while expenditures would still remain above Rs300 billion. How would such a gap be bridged?
A more reasonable demand would be the reduction of unnecessary government expenditures and the downsizing of an oversized administrative structure. To some extent, steps in that direction have already been taken. Government departments have been regrouped, 22 departments have reportedly been eliminated, and the number of ministers and advisers has been reduced from 30 to 20. More reforms are certainly needed, but it would be inaccurate to suggest that no effort is being made at all.
Another argument frequently advanced concerns remittances from Europe. This claim is often exaggerated. The largest share of Pakistan’s remittances comes from the Gulf and Arab states, while the European contribution remains comparatively limited. Moreover, the number of Kashmiris residing in Europe is not particularly large, and among those who do live there, many have permanently settled and no longer maintain substantial financial ties with Pakistan. It is also worth remembering that those who migrated abroad often did so with facilitation provided by the Pakistani state. Furthermore, overseas Pakistanis come from every region of the country, not from Azad Kashmir alone. The claim that remittances are a uniquely Kashmiri contribution does not hold up to the facts.
The demand to abolish refugee seats in the Azad Kashmir Assembly is even more problematic. These seats are directly linked to the broader Kashmir cause and the historical struggle for self-determination. Kashmir is not synonymous with Azad Kashmir alone. It is a single disputed territory, part of which remains under Indian control. These seats exist because part of Kashmir remains under Indian control and because those people must continue to have a place in the political framework of Azad Kashmir.
Removing these seats would weaken an important constitutional connection with the wider Kashmir cause. The Assembly of Azad Kashmir is not merely a platform for local political representation. It is also connected to the larger struggle surrounding Kashmir’s future status. For that reason, the demand to abolish refugee seats makes little sense in the context of the Kashmir dispute.
The same concern applies to demands seeking the abolition of educational quotas for students who have come from the Occupied Kashmir. It is striking that while students from Azad Kashmir continue to benefit from quotas in educational institutions across Pakistan, some object to limited provisions for students from occupied Kashmir within Azad Kashmir itself.
This raises an uncomfortable question: why are demands repeatedly directed at symbols and institutions connected to occupied Kashmir? Is this genuinely a movement for rights, or are there other forces and motivations influencing the direction of these demands?
The central question, therefore, remains unchanged. Why is it that regions of Pakistan possessing strategic importance are simultaneously witnessing agitation and instability in the name of rights? Is it simply a coincidence, or is there a degree of deliberate planning behind the pattern?
Before slogans are accepted at face value, these questions deserve serious and honest consideration.
The writer is a freelance columnist.