Pakistan-administered Kashmir, or AJK, is undergoing one of its most serious crises in recent times. A shutter-down and wheel-jam strike, led by the Jammu and Kashmir Joint Awami Action Committee (JAAC), has paralyzed daily life across the region. Markets, shops, and transport remain shuttered, rallies continue under heavy security, and mobile and internet services have been suspended, severing residents from the outside world at a critical moment. The unrest has already claimed nine lives and left dozens injured – a tragic reminder that coercion cannot substitute for governance.
At the heart of the unrest lies JAAC’s 38-point charter of demands, which channels public anger over soaring electricity tariffs, rising food prices, and entrenched elite privileges. Despite multiple rounds of talks with federal and local authorities, the deadlock persists. What began as issue-based agitation has evolved into one of the most widespread protest movements the region has witnessed in years, exposing a deepening crisis of representation and legitimacy.
In the backdrop, faced with mounting dissent, the political leadership in AJK has resorted to theatrics rather than offering meaningful solutions. The alleged “cipher document” linking the protests to India first surfaced on September 16, when former AJK Prime Minister Raja Farooq Haider Khan unveiled it during an all-parties conference of Kashmiri political leaders in Islamabad. Several participants quickly dismissed the cipher as a conspiracy, warning that such distractions were designed to undermine and derail the ongoing popular protest movement.
Coupled with plans for pro-state rallies under the banner of Pakistan Zindabad, the move was clearly intended to redirect popular anger outward and recast domestic dissent in AJK as a foreign conspiracy. But the gambit failed. Far from instilling public confidence, it underscored the fragility of governance in the region.
By framing demands for economic relief and political accountability as externally orchestrated, leaders revealed their unwillingness – or inability – to engage substantively with the grievances fueling mass mobilization. For ordinary citizens, the cipher drama was less proof of foreign meddling than confirmation of elite deflection and denial.
The protests highlight a widening gulf between rulers and ruled in Kashmir. While political elites safeguard their perks and stage loyalty parades calibrated to Islamabad and Rawalpindi power houses, citizens demand fair representation, relief from economic hardship, and genuine accountability. Heavy-handed measures – from communication blackouts to security crackdowns and counter-rallies – only deepen the perception of a government unwilling to listen.
Mainstream Pakistani media has compounded this sense of exclusion. Coverage of the JAAC has been minimal, skewed, or openly hostile, often portraying the movement as disruptive or tainted by foreign influence. Instead of scrutinizing the roots of discontent, media outlets have echoed official narratives, marginalizing Kashmiri voices and reinforcing the impression that protest is delegitimized by default. Denied both meaningful representation and media space, Kashmiris see few avenues left but the street – a dangerous dynamic for any polity.
The deeper problem is structural. For decades, the region’s political and bureaucratic framework has functioned less as a representative government and more as an administrative extension of the federal center. Local leaders rise and fall based on their alignment with Islamabad’s power brokers, while decisions over resources, representation, and rights are made in line with federal priorities rather than local needs. This has left citizens disillusioned and increasingly resistant to what they view as hollow self-governance.
It is the region’s youth who now embody this disillusionment. Their protests transcend economic grievances, raising fundamental questions of identity, dignity, and self-determination. They are skeptical of traditional representatives, who are seen as aligned with federal interests rather than local aspirations. This generational shift is not a fleeting outburst but a deeper transformation in the political consciousness of Kashmir’s youth. It signals a demand for dignity and genuine control over their futures – aspirations that cannot be contained by force or co-opted by slogans.
For Islamabad, the stakes extend far beyond managing a domestic governance crisis. Mishandling unrest in AJK through coercion and spectacle risks undermining the very foundation of Pakistan’s Kashmir policy. Internationally, Pakistan has long claimed moral authority on the Kashmir question by presenting itself as the advocate of Kashmiri self-determination on the international stage. Yet when Kashmiris under its own administration protest against economic hardship and political exclusion, their grievances are dismissed as foreign conspiracy and met with coercion.
This contradiction erodes Islamabad’s credibility, handing New Delhi a diplomatic advantage. India has consistently argued that Pakistan denies genuine autonomy to the territories it controls – images of shuttered towns, mass funerals, and internet blackouts in the region now reinforce that narrative. The more Islamabad quashes dissent, the more it undermines its own case on the global stage.
At a time when Pakistan’s economy is already under severe strain, prolonged instability in AJK becomes an added liability. The state is also facing a daunting terrorism challenge along its western borders and a fraught relationship with India on its eastern flank, where hostility remains ever-present. In such a fragile regional security environment, Islamabad can ill afford another front of unrest. The eruption of mass protests in AJK, and the state’s instinctive turn to coercion rather than reform, risks fueling instability at a moment when the country’s economic and strategic vulnerabilities are already acute.
The protests in AJK are not merely about subsidies or electricity tariffs. They are a demand for dignity, representation, and accountability. The deaths of eight civilians in recent clashes underscore the human cost of ignoring these demands. Cipher dramas, staged rallies, and selective media coverage cannot erase the reality that AJK’s governance crisis is structural, not superficial. Treating the dissent as a foreign conspiracy may buy short-term political cover, but it is a dangerously costly miscalculation in the longer run.
The choice before Islamabad is stark. It can continue to manage AJK as a territory governed by federal diktat, deflecting dissent as conspiracy and silencing voices through coercion. Or it can acknowledge the legitimacy of the grievances on display, recognize AJK as a polity in its own right, and begin the difficult work of building institutions that reflect the will of its people.
For now, the government has chosen theatrics over reform. But the message from Kashmir’s streets is unambiguous: the people demand dignity and voice, and no cipher can erase that.