Despite sincere and ongoing efforts by the Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK) government to ease economic pressure on citizens, a concerning trend has taken shape in recent months. Subsidy-related challenges are increasingly being portrayed as proof that the state has failed. While these claims are often presented as public anger, they deserve closer examination.
Evidence suggests that the loudest protests are not always rooted in concern for ordinary people. Instead, many appear to be driven by calculated efforts to secure additional commercial benefits. Certain groups, closely aligned with powerful local trade lobbies, have learned to exploit public frustration. They present themselves as champions of the people while quietly pushing for concessions that serve private business interests.
The AJK government has already introduced subsidies on essential goods to stabilize prices and protect low-income households. These measures are real and have provided tangible relief, even though no policy is without challenges. However, organized campaigns deliberately ignore these facts.
By framing every shortcoming as incompetence or neglect, they aim to weaken public trust while shifting attention away from those who actually profit from the unrest, middlemen, and supply-chain actors who benefit from inflated prices
Trade lobbies, long skilled at exerting pressure, are taking advantage of the current economic climate. Inflation and global disruptions have understandably made people more sensitive to rising costs. Rather than helping address these problems, some commercial players are using the situation to demand benefits that go far beyond what is fair or financially possible. Their goal is not consumer relief, but higher margins, preferential treatment, and fewer regulations.
This strategy depends on misrepresentation. Existing subsidies are dismissed as meaningless, while price hikes caused by hoarding, artificial shortages, or cartel-like behavior are blamed entirely on the government. The role of intermediaries is carefully hidden. As a result, a distorted narrative emerges, one where the state is blamed for everything and powerful market players escape scrutiny. This manufactured outrage has real consequences. Constant agitation damages market confidence, discourages investment, and makes sound policymaking more difficult.
When protests are used as bargaining tools, genuine dialogue is replaced by pressure tactics. Long-term planning suffers, and policies become reactive rather than sustainable
Even more troubling is the attempt to turn these economic disputes into broader political attacks on AJK and Pakistan’s leadership. This is not accidental. Such narratives align with wider agendas that seek to weaken trust in institutions and portray governance as fundamentally incapable. By combining economic frustration with anti-government messaging, commercial disputes are turned into political flashpoints.
None of this means that public concerns are illegitimate. People struggling with rising prices have every right to demand relief and accountability. But when those concerns are hijacked by profit-driven actors, public interest takes a back seat. The irony is that many who claim to speak for the suffering public are the same ones benefiting from inflated prices and opaque market practices.
Looking closely at who benefits from prolonged unrest makes the picture clearer. Each cycle of agitation strengthens the negotiating position of certain commercial groups, enabling them to secure subsidies, tax breaks, or favorable pricing policies that help wholesalers more than consumers.
Meanwhile, ordinary citizens are left dealing with confusion and uncertainty
This does not absolve the government of responsibility. Subsidy systems must always be improved, refined, and transparently implemented. The AJK administration continues to work toward that goal within real fiscal limits. What undermines progress is not constructive criticism, but pressure politics driven by hidden commercial motives.
The conversation around subsidies must be based on facts, fairness, and genuine concern for public welfare. Calling out manipulation and manufactured outrage is necessary to rebuild trust and ensure that relief reaches those who truly need it. When the debate is reclaimed from vested interests, it can shift away from staged confrontations and toward practical, sustainable solutions.
