he Multiplicity of Crises Facing Pakistan – Final Part-4
By Asif Haroon Raja
Behind the Façade of Rights: The Real Agenda Exposed
The entire campaign was orchestrated by the Joint Awami Action Committee (JAAC) in Azad Jammu & Kashmir (AJK) under the guise of rights and victimhood has now been fully exposed. Its true face and underlying intentions are no longer hidden.
This is not a struggle for the rights of Kashmiris; rather, it is a campaign aimed at advancing Prime Minister Modi’s objectives and furthering New Delhi’s agenda.
The reality behind the spectacle created in the name of demanding rights is that, on one hand, attempts are allegedly being made to undermine the 12 constitutional seats reserved for genuine Kashmiri refugees residing in Pakistan, thereby severing their political and emotional link with their homeland.
On the other hand, individuals associated with this Action Committee—many of whom are accused of living comfortable lives with their families in the United Kingdom, the United States, and Dubai—are now openly campaigning for the withdrawal of the Pakistan Army from AJK.
A fundamental question must be asked.
If Pakistan’s armed forces, which have shed blood over generations in the defence and protection of Kashmiris, were to withdraw from the region, would these expatriate activists and social media warriors return to stand guard along the borders of AJK and protect the lives and property of its people?
Would those raising funds and directing campaigns from London and Dubai be willing to stand on the Line of Control and defend Kashmiris against the massive military presence deployed by the Modi government?
Many of these individuals have neither their families nor their children living on this soil, yet they seek to dictate its future from afar.
Why don’t we understand the game plan of the Modi government, which after failing to achieve its sinister objectives through force following the abrogation of Articles 370 and 35A, is now attempting to accomplish through external proxies and the so-called Action Committee.
The objective is to foment unrest within Azad Kashmir, weaken its defensive shield, and erode the political representation of genuine Kashmiris.
The campaign represents not a struggle for rights but a betrayal of the Kashmir cause under the cover of rights activism. The patriotic and politically conscious people of AJK will never accept such efforts and will resist any attempt to undermine Pakistan’s security or the cause of Kashmir’s freedom.۔
The Traitors
Many “Mirs” have emerged in the history of the Subcontinent who committed acts of treachery. Their names were permanently recorded in history alongside the label of traitor. Shaukat Mir, too, will be remembered as a traitor in the same vein as Mir Jafar and Mir Sadiq.
History bears witness that the fate of such traitors is often grim and disastrous. The people of Pakistan are making sacrifices by tightening their own belts to provide them with subsidized flour and affordable electricity, yet their real agenda appears to be something entirely different.
The ordinary people of Kashmir remain deeply attached to Pakistan, but disruptive and mischief-making elements have effectively held Kashmir hostage.
In reality, these elements have little or no genuine presence on the ground. Their social media handlers operate from India and Israel, attempting to create an anti-Pakistan narrative and atmosphere. However, they will ultimately fail in their efforts.
PPP’s Dual-Track Politics and the Emerging Crisis in AJK
Pakistan is presently confronted with a combination of economic pressures, security challenges, and an increasingly hostile external environment.
At such a critical juncture, national cohesion and political responsibility should take precedence over partisan interests.
Unfortunately, the conduct of several political actors suggests that narrow political calculations continue to outweigh broader national considerations.
While the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) remains singularly focused on regaining political power, it has shown little inclination to contribute constructively toward addressing Pakistan’s pressing challenges.
Its political discourse and social media campaigns have often mirrored narratives that adversarial states seek to promote against Pakistan.
This convergence, whether deliberate or incidental, has further deepened political polarization and weakened national unity.
More troubling, however, is the role played by the Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP), which has adopted a strategy of political opportunism while remaining a coalition partner in the federal government.
Throughout its partnership with the PML-N-led government, PPP has sought to maximize political gains while avoiding responsibility for governance shortcomings, economic difficulties, and security setbacks. It has enjoyed the privileges of power without fully sharing the burden of accountability.
This dual-track approach has enabled PPP to strengthen its political position in Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK) and Gilgit-Baltistan (GB) while simultaneously exerting pressure on the federal government.
Rather than reinforcing national stability, the party has often leveraged crises to extract political concessions and expand its electoral footprint.
Questions are also being raised regarding the rise of groups such as the JAAC.
Although originally projected as a public pressure movement, critics argue that it lacks the institutional characteristics of a conventional democratic or political organization.
Concerns persist that various political actors, including PPP and PTI, found it expedient to encourage or politically exploit such movements to weaken their opponents and create pressure on the state.
Another contentious issue is the proposed reduction or elimination of representation for Kashmiri refugees. The deprivation of twelve refugee seats would have significant political implications, particularly because many of these constituencies are located in Punjab.
Such a move would alter the electoral landscape and potentially benefit parties seeking to consolidate their influence within AJK’s political structure.
The timing of the present unrest has therefore generated speculation regarding its broader political objectives.
One possible consequence could be the disruption or postponement of the scheduled 27 July elections in AJK.
If electoral processes are delayed or compromised, the resulting uncertainty would benefit those political forces seeking to renegotiate the balance of power rather than submit themselves to the verdict of the electorate.
The central question, therefore, is whether Pakistan’s political parties will rise above partisan calculations and act in the national interest, or whether short-term political gains will continue to take precedence over stability, democratic continuity, and national security.
The future of AJK, and indeed the broader Kashmir cause, depends upon the answer.
Ambitions of Big Powers
Beyond local politics, the developments in Kashmir must also be viewed within a wider geopolitical context. For decades, external actors have sought to reshape the strategic landscape of the region.
Various proposals have periodically surfaced advocating changes to Kashmir’s political status and the strategic utilization of adjoining territories.
We must not forget the fizzy idea of Zalmey Khalilzad floated by him in 2021 about transforming Pakistan’s Northern Areas into an international educational resort and a paradise on earth. He conveniently overlooked the existing IIOJK turned into a hellhole.
We also know that after failing to control Afghanistan, the US had aspired to create an alternative US-Israel-India joint military base in Ladakh, and to make the whole of Kashmir an independent state.
While many of these proposals remain speculative, they underscore the reality that Kashmir remains at the center of competing regional and global interests.
Concluding Observation
The paradox of Pakistan’s contemporary politics is that some parties seek the privileges of government and the advantages of opposition simultaneously.
The PPP’s conduct in recent years exemplifies this dual-track strategy. While benefiting from its partnership in Islamabad, it has continuously cultivated political agitation in the peripheries, enabling it to claim credit for political gains while distancing itself from responsibility for governance failures, economic difficulties, and security setbacks.
By remaining inside the corridors of power while positioning itself as an external critic, the party has sought to maximize its political leverage at every stage.
Its growing influence in AJK and Gilgit-Baltistan, coupled with its ability to pressure the federal government without assuming corresponding accountability, reflects a carefully calibrated political strategy.
The controversy surrounding the refugee seats, the rise of pressure groups, and the current unrest in AJK must therefore be viewed not merely as isolated developments, but as part of a broader political contest for influence and electoral advantage.
If political expediency is allowed to override democratic norms and national priorities, the ultimate casualty will not be any particular party, but the stability of the state and the integrity of the Kashmir cause itself.
At a time when Pakistan faces serious external threats and internal challenges, the need of the hour is, responsible statecraft, rather than tactical political maneuvering.
Parties that seek to benefit simultaneously from government and opposition may secure short-term electoral gains, but such an approach risks deepening polarization, weakening institutions, and undermining national cohesion.
The people of Pakistan, particularly the people of Kashmir, deserve politics that serve their interests rather than partisan ambitions.
A Constitutional Alternative
Movements with genuine public support should focus on constitutional politics rather than confrontation.
If citizens believe they have legitimate grievances, they should organize politically, contest elections, enter representative institutions, and pursue reform through democratic means.
Lasting change is achieved not by challenging the foundations of the State but by improving governance, strengthening institutions, and addressing public concerns through lawful and constitutional processes.
The central question is whether political movements wish to remain vehicles for protest or evolve into platforms capable of delivering practical solutions and long-term prosperity for the people they seek to represent.
Reserved Seats
Why is Pakistan unwilling to abolish the twelve reserved seats allocated to refugees from Jammu and Indian-administered Kashmir?
The population of Indian-administered Jammu and Kashmir ranges between 12.5 and 15 million people, whereas the population of AJK is approximately five million.
The number of refugees who migrated from Jammu and Indian-administered Kashmir to Pakistan initially stood at around 600,000 to 700,000, but has since grown to an estimated 3.5 to 4 million.
These refugees are now settled across various provinces of Pakistan, including Sindh, Punjab, and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.
A significant number of AJK residents also reside elsewhere in Pakistan.
The demand to abolish the twelve refugee seats resembles the demographic and political changes that India pursued in Indian-administered Kashmir following the revocation of Article 370 and Article 35 A.
According to this perspective, if the refugee seats were removed, it could weaken the political voice of displaced Kashmiris in any future settlement or referendum concerning the status of the former princely state.
The continued existence of these seats, combined with the support of pro-Pakistan constituencies in AJK, prevents such an outcome.
Preserving refugee representation is not merely a constitutional issue, but a matter linked to Pakistan’s longstanding position on the Kashmir dispute.
Stance of JAAC
The campaign against the refugee seats forms part of a broader political agenda associated with Shaukat Nawaz Mir and his supporters.
This agenda seeks to alter the political structure of AJK in ways that could eventually undermine its connection with Pakistan. It must not be forgotten that AJK acts as the operational base for the Kashmir cause and keeps the issue alive.
The links between certain JAAC leaders and former political circles associated with Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), cannot be denied.
Pakistan’s State institutions are unlikely to accept any proposal that, in their view, weakens the constitutional and political rights of refugees from Jammu and Indian-administered Kashmir.
The Representation of Kashmiris in Pakistan’s State Structure
The misguided claims that Kashmiris are politically marginalized within Pakistan are not based on verifiable facts.
A number of senior military officers have originated from AJK, including serving and retired generals who have occupied important command and staff appointments within the armed forces.
Among the officers are Lt Gen Shahid Imtiaz, Lt Gen Imdad Hussain Shah, Maj Gen Wajid Aziz, Maj Gen Kashif Azad, Maj Gen Amjad Aziz, Maj Gen Imtiaz Gillani, Maj Gen Sardar Tariq, and Maj Gen Asif Aziz.
Retired officers such as Lt Gen Sher Afghan of Mirpur and Gen Aziz Khan of Palandri, served as Chief of General Staff, Corps Commander, and later Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee. Likewise, Lt Gen Sardar Muhammad Anwar Khan went on to serve as President of Azad Kashmir after retirement.
The presence of Kashmiris in such senior positions contradicts narratives claiming systematic exclusion or denial of opportunities.
Calls for a Stronger State Response
Pakistan must adopt a firmer approach toward groups that seek to challenge state authority, while continuing to benefit from the country’s security, economic resources, educational institutions, and international representation.
The demands advanced by the JAAC have steadily expanded over time—from seven demands initially, to seventeen, and later to thirty-eight. This pattern suggests that further concessions would only encourage additional demands in the future.
A stronger State response is advocated for political blackmailing tactics and attempts to destabilize public order.
Pakistan’s Response to External Interference
The hostile external actors, particularly India and its intelligence apparatus, have attempted to exploit domestic grievances, economic hardships, and protest movements in order to generate instability within Pakistan.
The State must distinguish between legitimate public protest and foreign-sponsored agitation. The citizens have the right to raise genuine concerns, but the State should remain vigilant against attempts by external actors to manipulate those grievances for strategic purposes.
Whenever Pakistan’s sovereignty and national security are threatened, the State, the public, and the armed forces will stand united.
Previous efforts to destabilize Pakistan through hybrid warfare and covert influence campaigns have failed. Future attempts will likewise be defeated.
The overwhelming majority of the people of AJK remain committed to Pakistan and will continue to resist any effort aimed at undermining the region’s stability, identity, or constitutional relationship with the Pakistani state.
Recommendations
Need For State Authority And Public Order
The foremost responsibility of any State is to protect the lives and property of its citizens and ensure the rule of law.
Protest, dissent, and the presentation of demands are part of every society; however, when matters escalate into violence, attacks on public institutions, or confrontations with law enforcement agencies, the State cannot remain a passive spectator.
The recent tensions in AJK have once again raised the question of how to maintain a balance between public demands for rights and the authority of the state.
If a protest movement becomes infiltrated by elements seeking confrontation, disorder, or the weakening of state institutions, it not only damages the credibility of the movement itself, but also poses a threat to peace and stability across the region.
Demands And The Political Process
It is a fact that, over different periods, the JAAC and other groups have put forward a variety of economic, administrative, and constitutional demands.
However, in democratic societies, the most effective means of addressing such demands are Parliament, Legislation, Elections, and Constitutional forums.
Political forces should channel public support into the electoral process rather than street confrontations and strive for reforms through legislative assemblies.
Concluded About the Author
Brigadier (Retd) Asif Haroon Raja, SI (M) is a war veteran. He is Command and Staff Course and War Course qualified, holds an MSc in War Studies, and served as Defence Attaché in Egypt and Sudan, as well as Dean of the Corps of Military Attachés in Cairo.
He is a defence, security, and geopolitical analyst, international columnist, author of five books, former Chairman of Thinkers Forum Pakistan, Patron-in-Chief of Centre for Development Studies Think Tank, Director of Meesakh Research Centre; he regularly appears on media platforms.
