By Asif Mahmood

JAAC’s decision to stay away from the electoral process, coupled with its apparent attempt to undermine it, raises a fundamental question about the Committee’s character. Does this suggest that it is neither democratic in temperament nor committed to the democratic process? Has it abandoned faith in democratic politics altogether? If so, is its objective no longer the pursuit of public rights through constitutional means, but rather to sow hatred, division, and discord within society?
There should be no disagreement over the rights of the people of Azad Kashmir. Those rights deserve to be protected and upheld. The real question, however, is whether the methods currently being employed in Kashmir are the right ones.
The Kashmir Action Committee had put forward 38 demands, and it is being claimed that 35 of them have already been accepted. The question, then, is whether there is any justification for continuing strikes and creating an atmosphere of unrest after the acceptance of such a substantial number of demands.
Electricity in Azad Kashmir costs between Rs. 3 and Rs. 7 per unit. In the rest of Pakistan, electricity tariffs have risen to levels that have left ordinary people reeling. Some are burdened by exorbitant electricity bills, while others are struggling with a solar policy that has become a source of constant frustration. Yet electricity in Azad Kashmir remains available at just Rs. 3 to Rs. 7 per unit, and despite this, protests continue.
The story of Azad Kashmir’s finances is equally revealing. The region’s own annual revenue stands at around Rs. 60 billion, yet its annual budget exceeds Rs. 300 billion. One must therefore ask: where does the additional Rs. 240 billion come from? It is provided by the federal government. The demand to abolish taxes may sound appealing, but one must also explain how the budget would then be financed and how public-sector salaries would be paid. It is being said that if taxes were abolished, Azad Kashmir’s own annual revenue would fall to just Rs. 15 billion, while its annual expenditure would still exceed Rs. 300 billion.
There is, of course, a legitimate case for reducing government expenditure and downsizing the oversized cabinet and administrative structure. Indeed, some progress has already been made. Government departments have been reorganised, with 22 departments being abolished or merged. The number of ministers and advisers has been reduced from 30 to 20. More needs to be done, but it would be inaccurate to suggest that nothing has changed.
The repeated claim that Europe is the principal source of remittances is also an exaggeration. The largest share of Pakistan’s remittances comes from the Gulf and Arab states, while the contribution from Europe is comparatively modest. Besides, how many Kashmiris actually live in Europe? And of those, how many still send money to Pakistan, as opposed to those whose lives and financial interests are now entirely based there? It should also be remembered that those who migrated abroad did so with the facilitation of the Pakistani state. Moreover, overseas Pakistanis come from every region of the country, not from Azad Kashmir alone.
The demand to abolish the reserved seats for refugees is equally untenable. These seats are intrinsically linked to the Kashmir freedom movement. How can they simply be abolished? Kashmir is not synonymous with Azad Kashmir alone; it is a single historical and political entity, part of which remains under Indian administration. The refugee seats exist in recognition of that reality and cannot simply be discarded. The Legislative Assembly of Azad Kashmir is not merely a forum for local political representation; it also embodies the continuing political and constitutional relationship with the Kashmir freedom movement. Demanding the abolition of refugee seats is therefore entirely illogical. These seats are closely connected with the right to self-determination and the principle of a plebiscite. How can they simply be eliminated?
Equally absurd is the demand to abolish the educational quota reserved for students who migrated from Indian-administered Kashmir. Ironically, students from Azad Kashmir continue to benefit from quota allocations across Pakistan, yet the quota reserved for students from Indian-administered Kashmir has become a source of resentment. One must ask: why is the identity of Indian-administered Kashmir being singled out in this manner? Is this genuinely a movement for rights, or are unseen hands pulling the strings from elsewhere?
So the parting shot : If Not Elections, Then What Does JAAC Want?