JAAC’s Intransigence, Rejection of Talks, and Deliberate Political Disruption
Why this matters: local context for readers following news across Pakistan and the region.
Noor e Sehar For weeks, the JAAC protests have dominated the political landscape of Azad Kashmir. Blocked roads, hunger strikes, and ultimatums have become routine. But beneath the noise, a quieter story has been unfolding, one that rarely makes it to the headlines. The government claims that out of 38 formal demands, 35 have already been accepted. Compensation has been paid to the families of those who lost their lives. Injured citizens have received their cheques. Wheat distribution has been settled on a 50:50 ratio. Open merit has been introduced in educational institutions. Property taxes have been reduced to 8.5 percent, court fees lowered, and a monitoring and implementation committee is actually at work. So the natural question arises: if 35 demands are already met, why are the roads still blocked? This is not a rhetorical question. A genuine public movement knows when to declare victory. When most of your demands have been accepted, the responsible path is to move from the street to the implementation room. But what we are seeing instead suggests that keeping the protest alive has become more important than solving the problem. The government says it never closed the door to dialogue, it offered negotiation, relief, and a high-level committee. JAAC, according to official statements, responded with deadlines, pressure tactics, and confrontation. Whether one accepts that framing fully or not, the core dilemma remains: what exactly is being fought for when most of the battle has already been won? Then there is the financial reality that no one wants to discuss publicly. Azad Kashmir’s own annual income is roughly 60 billion rupees, while its total expenditure exceeds 300 billion rupees. That means the federal government of Pakistan quietly carries a burden of nearly 240 to 250 billion rupees every single year. One of the remaining JAAC demands involves abolishing a specific tax. But if that tax is removed, AJK’s own income would drop from 60 billion to about 15