A.J.KASMIRE: The ongoing debate surrounding JAAC’s planned protest has shifted attention away from an important reality: meaningful engagement is already underway. A high-powered delegation representing both the federal government and major political stakeholders recently met to address the concerns raised by the movement.
The participation of senior leaders from across the political spectrum demonstrated a serious commitment to finding solutions through dialogue.
A key fact often overlooked in public discussion is that the vast majority of JAAC’s demands have already been accommodated. With 35 of 38 demands accepted, it is difficult to argue that the authorities have ignored public concerns. Significant progress has been made, and portraying the process as entirely unsuccessful does not accurately reflect the outcome of negotiations.
The remaining issues differ fundamentally from those already resolved. They relate to taxation policy, constitutional arrangements, and broader political structures. Such matters require careful legal and institutional processes and cannot be settled through deadlines, street pressure, or public ultimatums.
Financial realities must also be considered. Azad Jammu and Kashmir generates around PKR 60 billion in annual revenue while its expenditures exceed PKR 300 billion. The resulting gap is largely covered through financial support from Pakistan, which contributes approximately PKR 240–250 billion each year. Any discussion regarding taxes or revenue measures must acknowledge these fiscal constraints.
Calls for eliminating Advance Tax should therefore be examined within the broader context of public finance. Government revenues fund essential services, infrastructure projects, social welfare programmes, and administrative functions. Decisions affecting revenue collection carry consequences that extend far beyond a single policy demand.
Pakistan’s contribution to AJK is not limited to budgetary support. Tens of thousands of refugees displaced since 1989 continue to receive financial assistance funded by the federal government. These payments amount to roughly PKR 15 billion annually and reflect an ongoing commitment to humanitarian and social responsibilities.
Similarly, concerns regarding government privileges and expenditures were not dismissed during negotiations. Federal representatives indicated a willingness to review possible reforms and rationalisation measures. However, meaningful reform requires detailed proposals, practical recommendations, and continued engagement rather than broad rhetoric alone.
The question of the 12 refugee seats is even more complex. These seats are tied to constitutional provisions and the political representation of refugees from Indian-occupied Jammu and Kashmir. Any change to this arrangement requires legal procedures, institutional consensus, and broad political agreement rather than pressure-based decision-making.
Claims equating this issue with conditions in Indian-occupied Jammu and Kashmir overlook important distinctions. Refugee representation exists in AJK because a recognised refugee population continues to exist, and their political representation remains part of the constitutional framework.
The broader question facing AJK today is not whether grievances have been acknowledged. In many cases, they already have been. The real question is whether the focus remains on solving problems or on sustaining agitation even after substantial concessions have been secured.
The people of AJK deserve stability, progress, and effective governance. Dialogue offers the best path toward achieving these goals. When negotiations remain open and progress is possible, continued escalation risks undermining the very interests that citizens seek to protect.
Public debate should be guided by facts, transparency, and accountability rather than slogans. Every policy proposal should be assessed on its financial impact, constitutional implications, and long-term consequences for governance and development.
Democratic institutions exist to resolve complex constitutional and political questions. Legislative processes, consultation, and consensus-building provide more durable solutions than confrontation in the streets.
Above all, the public should reject any approach that creates unnecessary instability, disrupts economic activity, or places additional burdens on ordinary citizens. The success of any movement should ultimately be measured by tangible improvements in people’s lives, not by the number of protests it organises.
AJK’s future depends on responsible leadership, institutional maturity, constructive engagement, and practical solutions. Lasting progress will come through dialogue and democratic processesnot through perpetual agitation after most demands have already been addressed.
This version is more editorial in style and avoids repeating the original wording while preserving the overall message.
