Jammu Kashmir Policy Lab, Islamabad (2026)

08/08/2026

JKPL | ANALYSIS_001
Did the AJK Crisis Escalate?
A look at policy implementation, institutional response and unresolved grievances

The recent crisis in Azad Jammu & Kashmir did not emerge from a single event. It developed through a sequence in which economic grievances, unmet commitments, institutional disputes and political questions increasingly became interconnected.

The available evidence suggests that the escalation deserves to be examined not only through the actions of protesters, but also through the effectiveness of the state's policy and institutional response.

were initially socioeconomic

The movement that emerged in 2023 was initially driven largely by demands concerning the price of flour and electricity, issues directly affecting household welfare. Reuters reported that the 2024 protests were led by civil-rights groups demanding subsidized electricity and wheat prices, following inflationary pressures.

This is important because the crisis did not initially begin as a dispute over the constitutional structure of AJK.

government responded but implementation remained a problem

In May 2024, Pakistan approved a Rs24 billion ($86 million) grant for AJK following protests, including measures intended to reduce flour and electricity costs.

Yet by May 2026, JAAC leaders were publicly arguing that previously agreed commitments had not been implemented and were threatening renewed mobilisation.

This raises a fundamental policy question:

If an agreement resolves a crisis but its implementation later becomes a source of another crisis, where did the policy process fail?

The issue is therefore not simply whether the government accepted demands, but whether there was an effective mechanism for implementation, monitoring, accountability and public communication.

agenda expanded

By 2026, the movement's demands had expanded substantially. Reporting indicates that demands that had previously focused on subsidized flour and electricity had grown into a 38-point charter, with the most contentious current issue becoming the 12 legislative seats reserved for Kashmiri refugees living outside AJK.

This represents a significant policy transformation:

economic grievance → negotiated settlement → implementation dispute → broader political demands

The lesson for policymakers is that unresolved implementation problems can create space for previously narrower grievances to acquire a wider political character.

institutional response became increasingly confrontational

The crisis eventually moved beyond negotiation into arrests, restrictions and confrontation.

In June 2026, the AJK government proscribed JAAC under its anti-terrorism framework. Al Jazeera reported that the government accused the organisation of creating insecurity and disorder, while JAAC rejected the government's characterization.

The subsequent confrontation in Rawalakot resulted in deaths and was followed by restrictions on internet access.

Whatever one's position on the competing claims, the policy question is significant:

At what point does a grievance-management problem become a law-and-order problem, and what mechanisms exist to prevent that transition?

information gap made the crisis harder to navigate

The crisis also demonstrated the consequences of weak trust in competing sources of information.

During the June confrontation, authorities and JAAC presented fundamentally different accounts of events. For example, government officials described state action as necessary to restore law and order, while JAAC leadership described the same events as state violence.

Internet restrictions further complicated citizens' ability to independently verify information.

This connects directly to JKPL's earlier analysis:

When institutions lose public trust, competing narratives can become more influential than independently verified evidence.

The AJK crisis therefore raises questions about policy design, implementation and institutional responsiveness.

The central issue is not whether every demand raised by protesters is legitimate, nor whether every government response is unjustified.

The more important policy question is:

did a set of initially socioeconomic grievances evolve into a prolonged political crisis despite repeated negotiations and government commitments?

The evidence points to several areas requiring deeper examination:

1. Grievance prevention : Were emerging socioeconomic problems addressed early enough?

2. Implementation: Were negotiated commitments implemented through transparent and independently monitorable mechanisms?

3. Institutional dialogue: Were there durable channels through which grievances could be addressed before mobilisation escalated?

4. Crisis communication: Did government institutions provide sufficiently timely and trusted information during periods of uncertainty?

5. Political dispute management: When demands expanded from economic issues to questions of representation and constitutional arrangements, were appropriate political mechanisms available?

Policy Lesson
A government does not only manage a crisis through what it does during a protest.

It manages a crisis through what it does before the protest, how it implements after negotiations, and how it communicates during uncertainty.

The AJK experience therefore deserves to be studied as a case of preventable escalation rather than simply as a confrontation between the state and a protest movement.

JKPL, the priority should be clear:

Identify grievances early.
Implement agreements transparently.
Keep institutional dialogue open.
Communicate with evidence.
Resolve disputes before they become crises.

Evidence over narratives.

Jammu Kashmir Policy Lab (JKPL)
Evidence. Analysis. Policy.

08/08/2026

:
JKPL | Opinion_001

For nearly two months, the Jammu Kashmir Joint Awami Action Committee (JAAC) has sustained a sustained campaign of protest against the Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK) government and its political establishment. Anchored in a comprehensive charter of demands, commonly cited as encompassing 36 to 38 points, the movement’s principal political objective centres on the abolition of the twelve reserved seats in the AJK Legislative Assembly allocated to Kashmiri refugees (migrants) settled outside the territory since 1947. The agitation commenced in early June 2026, with sit-ins concentrated in Rawalakot and repeated announcements of a long march toward Muzaffarabad.

Despite intermittent efforts at dialogue, negotiations have repeatedly stalled. The central obstacle remains the status of the twelve reserved seats. The AJK Supreme Court has affirmed their constitutional protection under the 1974 Interim Constitution, requiring formal amendment for any alteration, while JAAC maintains that these seats distort local representation by allowing non-resident influence over the territory’s legislative and developmental priorities. Concurrently, the region has proceeded with phased elections to the Legislative Assembly. Political actors, preoccupied with securing another five-year mandate, have largely subordinated the resolution of the underlying grievances to electoral calculations. The result has been a protracted standoff in which the interests of ordinary citizens appear secondary.

The cumulative effects of prolonged shutter-down calls, administrative restrictions, and intermittent disruptions have produced severe socio-economic dislocation. Internet services have been severely curtailed, banking operations disrupted, and public transport largely immobilised, generating a climate of uncertainty and constrained mobility across the territory. Ordinary residents, labourers, small traders, and service providers—find themselves caught between the competing pressures of the protest movement and state responses.

Field conversations with local shopkeepers illustrate the depth of the hardship. Aslam Sardar, a cosmetics retailer; Javed Khan, a shoe seller; Iqbal Amir, a garments trader; Asif Nazeer, a sanitary-ware merchant; and Yameen Syed, a vegetable vendor, each reported an inability to meet commercial rent obligations after two months of intermittent closures. Landlords continue to demand payment, while footfall has collapsed. These traders describe themselves as squeezed from both sides: subject to shutdown directives from JAAC and occasional administrative measures, yet without customers or reliable cash flow to sustain their households.

Daily-wage labourers face parallel distress. Construction activity has largely halted, leaving those dependent on irregular employment without income. A naan-maker interviewed during the same inquiries expressed a simple plea for swift resolution, citing escalating prices of essential commodities that now strain already precarious household budgets. Another individual engaged in domestic work reported that his foreign employer had suspended wage payments pending restoration of internet connectivity required for financial transfers, limiting employment to the exhaustion of previously procured materials.

These accounts are not isolated anecdotes; they reflect a broader pattern of economic attrition that falls disproportionately on the most vulnerable segments of society. Neither the JAAC nor the AJK administration has, according to those interviewed, provided targeted financial relief or interim support packages to offset the costs of prolonged disruption. The absence of such measures risks converting legitimate political grievances into a deeper reservoir of public frustration, one that could generate adverse consequences for both the state and the protest movement itself.

The present impasse underscores a familiar tension in contested territories: the difficulty of reconciling structural demands for political reform with the immediate welfare of the population that must bear the costs of confrontation. Sustainable resolution requires recognition that neither electoral competition nor maximalist protest tactics can indefinitely ignore the material conditions of ordinary citizens.

1. Immediate restoration of essential services and humanitarian facilitation. Both the AJK government and JAAC should prioritise the phased resumption of internet connectivity, banking operations, and public transport, alongside the establishment of joint monitoring mechanisms to ensure that essential goods and medical services remain accessible during any continued agitation.

2. Time-bound, structured dialogue with third-party facilitation. Negotiations should resume under a clearly defined timeline, preferably with neutral facilitation (drawing on respected civil society, bar associations, or senior interlocutors with prior experience in AJK disputes), focusing first on confidence-building measures and a sequenced approach to the twelve seats question rather than an all-or-nothing confrontation.

3. Interim economic relief for affected livelihoods. The AJK government, potentially with federal support, should announce a targeted relief package rent deferrals or subsidies for small traders, cash assistance or food support for daily-wage labourers, and temporary wage guarantees for disrupted service workers, while JAAC should calibrate shutter-down calls to minimise irreversible damage to the informal economy.

4. Constitutional and representational pathway for the reserved seats. Rather than unilateral abolition or rigid defence of the status quo, both sides should commit to a transparent process examining options under the Interim Constitution, ranging from residency-linked reforms, weighted representation, or a formal amendment procedure accompanied by independent analysis of the seats’ impact on local accountability and resource allocation.

5. Depoliticisation of immediate welfare and restraint during the electoral cycle. Political parties and JAAC leadership should issue public commitments to refrain from exploiting the crisis for electoral advantage, while security and administrative responses should prioritise de-escalation, the release of non-violent detainees where feasible, and the avoidance of measures that further isolate the civilian population.

The people of Azad Jammu and Kashmir deserve governance that addresses both structural inequities and the daily material realities of survival. Prolonged confrontation without regard for the latter risks eroding the very legitimacy that both the state and popular movements claim to defend.

By Akseer Ali Saif Janjua
Gruaduate in International Relations and Academic Researcher

07/08/2026

JKPL Policy Brief-No. 001
:

The recent crisis in Jammu & Kashmir highlighted a significant challenge within the region's digital information environment. Public discourse on social media became increasingly dominated by two competing narrative ecosystems: official state communication and movement-led digital activism. While both actively sought to shape public opinion, the space for independent, evidence-based discussion appeared to narrow.
As polarization intensified, citizens expressing balanced or evidence-based views frequently encountered pressure to align with one side or the other. Rather than evaluating claims on the basis of evidence, public debate increasingly reflected political affiliation and identity. This environment weakened informed public discourse, contributed to mistrust, and made it more difficult for citizens to distinguish verified information from competing narratives.
This policy brief argues that the principal policy challenge is not merely the existence of competing narratives, but the absence of a trusted, evidence-based middle ground where claims can be examined objectively regardless of their source. Strengthening fact-based public communication is therefore essential for democratic dialogue, informed decision-making, and long-term social cohesion.

Social media has transformed political communication by allowing governments, political movements, journalists, and citizens to communicate directly with the public. While this has expanded access to information, it has also increased the speed at which competing narratives, misinformation, and emotionally charged content spread.
During the recent crisis in Jammu & Kashmir, online platforms became the primary arena through which the public interpreted unfolding events. Official institutions and movement-affiliated actors each promoted their own interpretation of developments, while citizens relied heavily on digital platforms for updates. In such an environment, determining which claims were verified became increasingly difficult.

The central challenge revealed during the recent crisis was not simply the presence of competing political narratives. Rather, it was the limited availability of a trusted, independent space where information could be assessed through evidence instead of political affiliation.
Digital discourse increasingly reflected a binary environment in which individuals were often expected to align with one of two dominant positions. Claims were frequently accepted or rejected based on who presented them rather than the evidence supporting them. As a result, balanced perspectives and independent verification struggled to gain visibility within the broader public conversation.

The review of digital communication during the recent crisis indicates several notable patterns:

* Public discourse was dominated by two competing information ecosystems: official state communication and movement-led digital activism.
* Both communication ecosystems consistently reinforced their respective narratives while challenging the credibility of competing accounts.
* Emotional appeals, identity-based messaging, and political symbolism were widely used to mobilize public opinion.
* Independent verification and evidence-based discussion received comparatively less visibility than competing narratives.
* Citizens expressing nuanced or balanced perspectives frequently faced pressure to identify with one side or the other, reducing the space for constructive dialogue.

These observations do not seek to determine which political actor was correct. Instead, they highlight structural characteristics of the digital information environment during the crisis.

The absence of a trusted evidence-based public sphere has significant consequences:
First, citizens face increasing difficulty distinguishing verified information from political advocacy.
Second, declining trust in information sources contributes to greater social polarization and reduces opportunities for constructive dialogue.
Third, public policy debates become increasingly driven by emotion, identity, and political affiliation rather than evidence.
Finally, prolonged polarization weakens institutional trust and makes peaceful conflict management more difficult during periods of crisis.

Evidence-Based Public Communication

Public institutions, civil society organizations, political movements, journalists, and digital influencers should support public claims with verifiable evidence whenever possible.

Independent Verification
Citizens should be encouraged to verify claims through multiple credible sources before accepting or sharing information.

Strengthen Digital Media Literacy
Educational institutions, civil society organizations, and media organizations should expand programmes that improve citizens' ability to distinguish facts, opinions, rumours, and misinformation.

Identity-Based Labeling
Healthy democratic debate requires disagreement without stigmatization. Public discourse should reject practices that label individuals solely because they question or critically examine particular narratives.

Independent Research and Analysis
Universities, research institutions, and policy organizations should contribute independent analysis during periods of political tension to provide citizens with evidence-based perspectives outside competing political narratives.

Responsible Crisis Communication
All major stakeholders should prioritize accuracy, transparency, timely corrections, and responsible communication during crises to reduce confusion and strengthen public trust.

The recent crisis demonstrates that the long-term challenge is not merely political disagreement but the quality of the public information environment. Competing narratives are an inevitable feature of democratic societies; however, sustainable public dialogue requires that competing claims be evaluated through evidence rather than political affiliation. Creating a stronger evidence-based public sphere will not eliminate disagreement, but it can improve public trust, encourage informed decision-making, and reduce the harmful effects of digital polarization. Strengthening a culture in which facts are assessed on their merits rather than by the identity of those presenting them should become a shared objective for public institutions, civil society, media organizations, and citizens alike.

Evaluate the claim, not the claimant.
Evidence over narratives. Facts before affiliations.

What role should evidence play in shaping public discourse during times of crisis? We welcome constructive, evidence-based perspectives.

29/04/2023

Report on Human Rights Violation of kidnaping, torture and inhumane behavior against Tallat Mehmood by department of human rights Transformation Engagements -TE
https://drive.google.com/file/d/12y1U-0jO2E1gNy6zzTd5ewDwL4P9mK_R/view?usp=drivesdk

14/02/2023

A speech by Ahmed Hameed Awan | Student of Read Foundation High School Hattian Bala
All Jehlum Valley Declmation Contest 23
کشمیر جل رہا ہے

14/02/2023

Ladies and gentlemen!
Arslan Aslam Aasi, person who created this platform where hundreds of people are benefitting on multiple fronts of speech, art, literature, naat etc in Azad Kashmir. He not only provided this platform to the youth but also working hard to make this platform more useful everyday.

He has been working to transform the conflict of Kashmir through various efforts using bottom up approach towards the peaceful and political settlement of the conflict. He is doing various activities of conflict transformation and management in Kashmir to transform the energy of conflict into a useful and constructive society.
He is human rights activist, advocates the issues and interests of Kashmiris through ground level research and through bringing the youth of Kashmir, on the stage to speak.

He has been strengthening the literary council of the organization to bring the ground leveled content from youth to research institutes and organizations so that two way understanding can be developed.

He brought Jammu Kashmir Literary and Debating Society upto this level through his intelligence and smartness to make policies and frameworks which were projected through hard work.

Thank you man, for serving the nation.

14/02/2023

Shields Distribution Ceremony

Jammu Kashmir Policy Lab

13/08/2026

10/08/2026

09/08/2026

08/08/2026

08/08/2026

07/08/2026

29/04/2023

14/02/2023

14/02/2023

14/02/2023

Address

Telephone

Website

Alerts

Shortcuts

Share

Category

Listing takedown request