The Political Economy of Protest in AJK
Life is undeniably getting harder for many families across Azad Jammu and Kashmir. Rising prices and economic pressure are real, and people are right to worry about their daily expenses. But it is becoming increasingly clear that the current wave of protests over subsidies is not driven purely by public hardship. Much of the noise is being shaped and amplified by calculated interests rather than genuine concern for ordinary households.
The AJK government has taken concrete steps to ease the impact of inflation. Subsidies on essential goods, price controls, and administrative measures are already in place and continue to provide relief, especially for lower-income families. These efforts may not be perfect, but they are real and measurable.
Unfortunately, they are rarely acknowledged by those leading the agitation. Instead, a selective and distorted picture is presented to fuel anger and keep pressure on the state
Behind much of this unrest lies the influence of local trade lobbies. These groups have both the resources and motivation to steer public narratives. By hiding behind the language of “public protest,” they divert attention away from their own role in price manipulation, hoarding, and supply control. What often looks like spontaneous outrage is, in reality, a well-managed campaign designed to extract further concessions, concessions that mostly benefit private businesses, not consumers.
Subsidies on essential commodities already exist and have helped stabilize markets. Acknowledging this would weaken the case for constant escalation, so agitators instead focus on isolated flaws and present them as total failure. Emotional slogans replace economic facts, and repetition takes the place of honest analysis. The result is confusion rather than clarity. This manufactured anger comes at a cost. When people are repeatedly told that their government is indifferent or incapable, trust in institutions begins to erode. That erosion creates opportunities for profiteering.
Informal markets expand, hoarding becomes easier to justify, and artificial shortages flourish. Ironically, those who shout the loudest about government failure often benefit most from the disorder they help create
There is also a deeper concern. Subsidy protests are being pushed beyond economic debate and turned into political confrontation. Instead of dialogue, data, and policy improvement, pressure is applied through street agitation and hostile rhetoric. Policymakers are forced into crisis mode, leaving little space for long-term planning or sustainable reform.
Even more troubling is the attempt to link these economic grievances with broader anti-government narratives aimed at both AJK and Pakistan’s leadership. This suggests that the agitation is not only commercial but ideological. In a sensitive region where stability depends on trust and social cohesion, such messaging is especially damaging.
Public interest is constantly invoked, but rarely defended in practice. If consumer welfare were truly the goal, protests would demand transparency in supply chains, action against cartels, and accountability for price manipulation. These issues are noticeably absent. Instead, blame is pushed upward, shielding market actors from scrutiny and responsibility.
Despite all this pressure, economic relief efforts have not stopped. Subsidies remain in place, and the government continues to balance fiscal responsibility with social protection. But sustained agitation muddies public understanding, making it harder for citizens to tell the difference between genuine policy gaps and manufactured crises.
Reasoned discussion is drowned out by accusation, and reform becomes hostage to noise
It is worth asking a simple question: who benefits when unrest becomes routine? Each protest cycle strengthens the bargaining position of certain commercial groups, while ordinary people are left dealing with uncertainty and higher prices. Households pay the price, not those pulling the strings.
Debates over subsidies should be about improving policy and protecting citizens, not about private profit or political destabilization. Exposing the link between hostile agitators and trade lobbies is essential to restoring trust and clarity. Economic challenges require shared responsibility and honest conversation. If public discourse can move away from orchestrated outrage and toward facts, transparency, and accountability, relief efforts will be stronger, fairer, and more sustainable for everyone.
