Stubborn JAAC faces backlash for refusing dialogue to spoil polls despite acceptance of demands

By Ishtiaq Ahmed

ISLAMABAD, Jun 5 (APP): The Joint Awami Action Committee’s (JAAC) persistent avoidance of institutional dialogue and refusal to engage with a designated implementation committee have sparked widespread accusations that the group is deploying deliberate election-spoiling tactics to destabilize the democratic process in Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK).

The criticism intensifies as the committee maintains its call for a wheel-jam strike on June 9, 2026—the exact date the AJK Election Commission has scheduled for candidates to begin filing nomination papers for the upcoming July 27 general elections.

The government has established formal, legal channels to systematically address the committee’s grievances, yet JAAC has repeatedly chosen to bypass them.

A high-level Monitoring and Implementation Committee was formally notified and has been conducting active sessions to oversee the progress of agreed-upon terms. However, JAAC’s response and participation in this official forum have remained inconsistent and incomplete.

Similarly, an independent Committee of Experts was specifically constituted to deliberate on the sensitive issue of the 12 refugee legislative seats. Rather than presenting a legal blueprint or engaging in structured debate, JAAC has enforced a total boycott of the expert panel, forcing prolonged delays.

The observers note that by turning its back on notified committees, JAAC is intentionally preserving a state of friction to justify its street-level ultimatums.

JAAC’s rigid timeline has raised serious red flags among constitutional experts and political stakeholders. With the election schedule officially active, candidates are legally allotted a timeframe from June 9 to June 19 to submit their nomination papers.

By deliberately forcing a massive strike and road closures on the opening day of this constitutional window, JAAC is accused of actively obstructing candidates, paralyzing election staff, and holding the democratic rights of ordinary voters hostage.

This insistence on street power over the ballot box is seen as a direct attempt to weaken the authority of the AJK Legislative Assembly, which represents the highest constitutionally elected forum of public mandate—and which has already formally endorsed the consensus declarations achieved during political consultations.

The narrative that the government is unresponsive has been thoroughly debunked by recorded administrative actions. Out of 38 initial demands, 35 have either been fully implemented or brought to final execution stages.

The state has withdrawn 177 criminal FIRs to lower political temperatures and Rs 70 million was paid out to the families of deceased victims (PKR 10 million per family across 7 cases), and PKR 48 million was distributed to 48 wounded individuals.

The government reduced the cabinet size to 20 ministers, shrunk administrative departments to 22, enforced open merit for public appointments and educational admissions. A 50:50 ratio system with PASSCO was adopted for wheat. For electricity, tariff adjustments up to 5 kW were implemented, surcharges waived, outstanding dues split into 36 installments, and Mangla Dam Raising Project billing arrears completely waived.

Open merit policies were implemented and notified for educational admissions and public appointments. Property transfer taxes were reduced to 8.5%.

The Government of Pakistan’s Health Card was made available to AJK residents. Extensive infrastructure projects—including PC-1 approvals for a PKR 361 million solid waste management plan, PKR 5.5 billion for MRI and CT scan machines, and PKR 2.8 billion for hospital operation theaters—are actively moving through relevant forums.

With the remaining three demands inherently tethered to complex state budget structures and constitutional law, JAAC’s absolute refusal to address them through parliamentary working groups—while actively trying to shut down the state on election day—has shifted public perception.

The committee faces growing condemnation for pursuing a narrow political agenda aimed at manufacturing institutional distrust rather than securing genuine public welfare.

If the JAAC’s true objective is the protection of Kashmiri rights, observers ask why its aggressive stance directly threatens the internal peace of Azad Kashmir. While Kashmiris in Indian-Occupied Jammu and Kashmir face ongoing suppression of basic rights, limited political freedom, and severe human rights violations under heavy state oppression, critics question why JAAC is exhausting its protest energy on shutting down AJK’s own markets, roads, schools, hospitals, and livelihoods.

A holistic review of JAAC’s demands raises serious concerns: weakening the tax system, targeting refugee seats and refugee students, destabilizing government infrastructure, generating artificial pressure through strikes, and threatening the democratic process despite the government’s demonstrated flexibility.

The observers note that JAAC’s specific focus on targeting refugee seats and refugee students does not seem accidental; it is a line of thinking that threatens to weaken the very political and historical foundation of the broader Kashmir cause.