PAKISTAN needs a permanent national policy of reconciliation and Azad Jammu and Kashmir and Balochistan should be among the first places where it is applied with care and discipline. A strong state is not defined only by its ability to restore order. It is also defined by its ability to prevent public dissatisfaction from becoming confrontational. Pakistan has the institutional and security capacity to defend itself. Yet that power should not become the first response to every protest, grievance or political disagreement. Azad Jammu and Kashmir is emotionally close to Pakistan, but it also has its own political institutions, constitutional arrangements and local sensitivities. Anyone who has visited AJK knows that its people live and work with Pakistanis without feeling separated from them. This closeness should be protected. Balochistan requires a similarly careful approach, although its circumstances are different. Its people have long raised concerns relating to political representation, economic opportunity, development, resource distribution, security and trust in institutions. Many of these grievances deserve a serious response. At the same time, violent groups have exploited public frustration and attacked citizens, workers and security personnel. The state must, therefore, distinguish between peaceful political demands and organized violence.
The people of AJK and Balochistan must feel that their voices are respected, their institutions matter and their grievances can be raised without automatically being treated as hostility towards Pakistan. Those who deliberately exploit public anger, organize violence or promote lasting hostility must, however, be dealt with firmly under the law. The most important task is to distinguish between different kinds of participants in any public movement. A peaceful citizen with a genuine complaint is not the same as an organizer of violence. A young person influenced by emotion, misinformation or social pressure is not the same as someone deliberately attacking institutions. A responsible state must respond differently to each category. Genuine grievances should be heard. Misunderstood issues should be explained. Emotionally mobilized citizens should be given a dignified path back. Violent actors should be investigated and prosecuted through evidence. This distinction is the heart of reconciliation. Pakistan’s present method is too reactive. Committees are often formed after violence has occurred, delegations are sent when public anger has peaked and agreements are signed without strong follow-up. Once the crisis passes, implementation slows and distrust returns.
A national reconciliation policy should replace this cycle with a permanent system. First, Pakistan needs an early-warning mechanism for public grievances. Electricity complaints, unemployment, disputed elections, concerns over local resources, market closures and persistent protests should be recognized before they become security crises. Intelligence should not focus only on identifying protest leaders. It should also explain why ordinary citizens are willing to follow them. Second, standing reconciliation councils should be created in sensitive regions. In AJK, such a council should include representatives of the AJK Government, the Government of Pakistan, opposition parties, civil society, traders, lawyers, youth, women and local communities. In Balochistan, it should also include provincial institutions, community representatives, political parties and affected families. These bodies must be trusted by more than one side.
Third, incidents involving deaths, injuries, arrests, disappearances or attacks on public property should trigger an independent and credible inquiry. The public must know who initiated violence, whether force was necessary and whether political or external actors exploited the situation. Transparency protects both citizens and state institutions. Fourth, negotiations must produce a clear charter. Public demands should be divided into those that can be accepted immediately, those requiring phased implementation, those needing legal or constitutional review and those that cannot be accepted for financial or security reasons. The government must explain its limitations honestly, while protest leaders must reject violence and armed infiltration.
Fifth, every agreement must include deadlines, responsible institutions and public progress reports. A promise without implementation is not reconciliation. It is a postponement. Dialogue does not mean surrender. There must be clear red lines against armed attacks, intimidation, destruction of public property, targeted violence and unlawful external support. But action should be individual and evidence-based. Entire communities should not be punished for the conduct of a few. AJK can become a model of preventive dialogue, while Balochistan can become a model of long-term political healing, development and reintegration. Together, they can demonstrate that Pakistan does not need to choose between reconciliation and the writ of the state. Proper reconciliation is the most durable form of state authority. A powerful state can disperse a crowd. A wise state can prevent that crowd from becoming an enemy.
—The author is an institutional Development and Governance Expert.
