By: Khawaja Kabir Ahmed
The true measure of a state’s progress is not found in the grandiloquent claims of its rulers, political speeches, official statistics, or legislation enacted within the halls of power; rather, it is reflected in the tangible improvements in the lives of ordinary citizens. Healthcare, education, employment, and basic amenities are the fundamental priorities of any civilized society. Providing these is not an act of charity, a favor, or a political gesture—it is a core responsibility of the state. Yet, when the people of a state struggle to access medical care and education—when children are forced to study in unsafe buildings or under the open sky, when patients are deprived of proper medical facilities, and when citizens are compelled to take to the streets repeatedly just to secure their legitimate rights—the question does not concern the expectations of the public, but rather the performance of those in power. Those who draw salaries, enjoy perks, and receive official protocols funded by public resources must explain what they have done to improve the lives of the people.
All 53 members of the Legislative Assembly of Pakistan-administered Jammu and Kashmir are accountable to the public. Whether they serve in the government or the opposition, whether they are former ministers or current office-holders, no one can evade accountability by hiding behind their political position. It is essential that the performance of those who have held various ministerial portfolios—those who made administrative decisions, approved budgets, and oversaw government projects—is laid bare before the public. Those in government must account for their decisions and the resulting outcomes, while members of the opposition must also explain the extent to which they fulfilled their duty to monitor public issues and government shortcomings. Membership in an assembly is not a license to evade public scrutiny; rather, it entails a responsibility to remain accountable to the people.
An impartial assessment of the performance of individuals who held various ministerial portfolios in previous administrations is essential. Those who have served as ministers at different times since 2021 must be asked: what changes did they bring to their respective departments? What measures did they take to resolve public issues? And what facilities were provided to the public in return for the funds spent from the state exchequer? A former minister cannot absolve themselves of responsibility simply by claiming they no longer hold office; conversely, an incumbent minister cannot use the failures of previous administrations to justify their own performance. Those who were part of the government in the past and are once again in power today will also have their previous decisions and performance subjected to accountability. A change in government neither resolves the problems faced by the public nor absolves former office-holders of their responsibilities.
This accountability is not limited to a single ministry or a few political figures. The performance of all departments—including Finance, Health, Education, Public Works, Energy, Water and Power, Agriculture, Forestry, Tourism, Local Government, Planning, Communications, Food, and Industry and Commerce—must be brought to light. A full account of each ministry’s budget, projects, expenditures, and tangible outcomes should be presented to the public. How much funding was allocated, where was it spent, how many projects were completed, and what benefits did the ordinary citizen derive from them? If a project has remained incomplete for years, who bears the responsibility for this delay? If government institutions are failing to deliver the desired results, what steps have those tasked with their oversight taken? Instead of labeling official meetings, the processing of files, or inauguration ceremonies as “successes,” the true benchmark for performance should be the tangible change brought about in the lives of the public.
Health and education are the foundational pillars of any state. The condition of these sectors serves as a clear reflection of a government’s priorities, administrative competence, and sense of public responsibility. If hospitals lack essential medical equipment, diagnostic facilities, and medicines; if patients are forced to travel to other cities for treatment; if poor families cannot afford the costs of private healthcare; and if the monitoring of the quality of medicines is ineffective—these are not merely minor administrative hurdles, but rather serious questions regarding the efficacy of the entire healthcare system. Former health ministers should be held accountable for their performance during their tenures, and the incumbent minister should be asked to provide an account of the current situation and the outcomes of any implemented reforms. A transparent assessment must be conducted regarding hospital facilities, the availability of medical staff, the procurement of medicines, quality oversight, and the state of healthcare in remote areas. Matters concerning human lives cannot be left to political justifications or perfunctory official statements.
The Ministry of Health is not a tool to be used for patronizing any political party, faction, or individual. It is a highly sensitive department directly linked to human lives; leading it requires a fundamental understanding of the field, administrative acumen, and the ability to collaborate effectively with experts. While an individual’s practice in alternative or traditional medicine may hold its own specific academic and practical merit, this does not, in itself, render that person suitable to head the administration of an entire modern healthcare system. If an individual is appointed as Minister of Health who lacks the capacity to grasp the fundamental requirements of public health, hospital management, medical services, and the oversight of related institutions, the matter transcends a mere political appointment—it becomes a question of safeguarding human lives and public resources. While it is not necessary for every minister to be a doctor, they must possess an understanding of the sector, the ability to make decisions guided by qualified experts, and the competence to shoulder administrative responsibilities. Sacrificing a ministry that deals with human lives for the sake of political expediency is unacceptable.
The education sector also demands such rigorous accountability. The future of the state hinges on the education, upbringing, and intellectual development of its children. If, even years after an earthquake, school buildings remain unreconstructed—forcing children to study under makeshift shelters or in the open air—if girls are compelled to sit on stones for lack of proper furniture, and if schools lack basic amenities, then every citizen has the right to question the performance of the relevant authorities. Former education ministers should be asked what measures were taken during their tenures regarding the reconstruction of schools, the safety of buildings, the availability of teachers, and the improvement of educational standards. The incumbent minister and departmental officials are also not exempt from their responsibilities. Records concerning the affected schools, construction projects, allocated budgets, and expenditures must be made public, and an explanation provided as to why there has been a delay in ensuring basic educational facilities for children.
While statistics on literacy rates and school enrollment figures have their place, the mere number of enrollments cannot be equated with educational success. The true measure lies in whether children are studying in safe buildings, whether teachers are available, what the quality of instruction is, whether essential facilities are present, and whether children from impoverished families have equal access to quality education. If children from the affluent class benefit from superior educational opportunities—whether in private institutions or abroad—while children from ordinary families struggle even for basic necessities, then the state’s priorities must inevitably be called into question. The issue is not that some individuals choose to send their children to private educational institutions; rather, the problem lies in the stark contradiction that children who rely on the public system are denied a safe environment, quality education, and equal opportunities for advancement. Education is not a luxury reserved for a specific class; it is the fundamental right of every child.
This is the core question facing the entire administrative structure of the state. If institutions funded by public resources fail to meet the basic needs of the people, an evaluation of their performance becomes inevitable. The practice of distributing ministerial portfolios as rewards for political loyalties, partisan compromises, or personal connections has raised serious questions about the quality of governance. The position of a minister is not merely a means to enhance one’s political standing or secure a share in power; it is a trust—a mandate for public service. Every minister must possess the capacity to understand the challenges within their department, set priorities, ensure the effective utilization of the budget, oversee institutions, and take responsibility for outcomes. If problems persist within a ministry and no tangible results emerge despite the expenditure of public funds, the minister in question must be held accountable and required to justify their performance. In cases where negligence or corruption is proven, legal action is imperative.
In Pakistan-administered Jammu and Kashmir, the widening gap between the privileges enjoyed by the ruling elite and the fundamental hardships faced by the general public demands serious attention. When access to healthcare, education, and basic daily amenities becomes a struggle for the common citizen—while those in the corridors of power remain focused on salaries, perks, elaborate protocols, and the protection of their own political interests—the public is bound to ask: what is the true priority of the state system? Representatives elected by the people, and institutions sustained by public resources, exist solely for the benefit of the public. If ordinary citizens are denied fundamental rights while the ruling class appears preoccupied with safeguarding its own interests, then such a mode of governance must be held to account. Public service cannot be proven through political slogans; it must be demonstrated through tangible results.
The movement for public rights, spearheaded by the Jammu and Kashmir Joint Awami Action Committee, has brought this fundamental contradiction to the fore. Spanning over three years, this movement has played a pivotal role in reframing public grievances—moving beyond mere individual complaints to address the core issues of fundamental rights and accountable governance. Key demands of the movement include improvements in healthcare, education, and electricity; the provision of basic amenities; the right to public resources; and the inclusion of the public in the governance process. This struggle has made it clear that the people are under no obligation to accept their rights as acts of benevolence from a ruler or favors from a political party. Basic amenities are the right of the people, and their provision is the responsibility of the state.
A significant achievement of this movement is the cultivation of a consciousness among the public—empowering them to ask questions and recognize their own rights. People are now demanding answers: Why has the condition of hospitals in their areas remained unchanged? Why do school buildings remain incomplete? Why are projects for basic amenities plagued by delays? Where are public resources being spent, and when will elected representatives be held accountable for their responsibilities? These inquiries do not constitute a personal campaign against any single party or individual; rather, they represent a demand for public accountability across the entire system of governance. The movement has been instrumental in shattering the long-standing silence and sense of helplessness surrounding public issues. It is no longer easy for those in power to ignore these questions or dismiss them merely as political opposition.
The scope of this public awakening has extended to the new generation, the youth, and students. A generation that questions its own future deserves answers, not silence. The public has a right to know who benefited from decisions made in their name, what outcomes resulted from expenditures from the state exchequer, and to what extent elected representatives fulfilled their responsibilities. Public consciousness cannot be subordinated to partisan interests or political expediency; rather, it serves as the foundation for transparency, good governance, and genuine accountability within the state.
In this context, the role of the core members of the Jammu & Kashmir Joint Public Action Committee is significant. Their unified stance on public grievances and demands for fundamental rights constitutes the strength of this movement. The objective of this struggle is not the political supremacy of any individual or group, but rather the fulfillment of public demands and the establishment of a system that benefits the common citizen. Given the hopes the public has pinned on this movement, it is essential to continuously monitor progress on these demands, compare government promises with concrete actions, provide the public with authentic information, and oversee the implementation of agreements. Mere announcements or promises do not constitute a solution; what truly matters is an outcome that improves the lives of the people. Safeguarding public trust is only possible through principled stances, collective solidarity, and consistent accountability.
Overseas Kashmiris have also expressed their solidarity with and support for the ongoing movement for public rights within the state. The support from Kashmiris living abroad underscores the fact that the issue of fundamental rights for the people of the state is not confined by geographical boundaries. This support must be utilized for the public interest, rather than being fragmented by the politics of community, faction, region, or personal connections. This struggle entails questioning the performance of past and present rulers based on verified information, highlighting the public issues faced within the state, and conveying demands for fundamental rights to the relevant institutions. Effectively representing the public’s concerns and holding those in charge accountable is far more important than promoting any individual political figure.
The state’s political class must now acknowledge that public awareness has grown; traditional claims of representation are now being measured against actual, tangible performance. The mandate held by representatives—who reached the legislative chambers through the people’s vote—is a public trust. Those who have held ministerial positions must account for their decisions and performance. Current rulers must present clear, actionable steps toward solving problems and demonstrate measurable results, while the opposition must provide concrete evidence of effective oversight and the representation of public grievances. The practice of sacrificing the rights of the people for the sake of party interests, or masking governmental failures behind political slogans, is no longer acceptable.
The people of the State of Jammu and Kashmir require hospitals that provide adequate medical care; schools where children can learn in a safe environment; an administrative system where citizens do not face humiliation or helplessness when seeking to get legitimate tasks accomplished; and a governance structure that ensures transparent accountability for the use of public resources. It is not a mark of success for any government when the public is forced to resort to protests every time they need to access basic amenities. Solving the problems faced by the public is the primary responsibility of those in power, and the fulfillment of this duty must be evidenced by tangible, practical results. Where such results are absent, accountability is essential. Every individual in a position of responsibility—from the legislative assemblies to the various ministries—must account for their performance before the public. An impartial review of the failures of previous administrations must be conducted, with accountability established—particularly within the sectors of health and education. The budgets and tangible outcomes of all departments must be scrutinized, and where negligence or irregularity is proven, action must be taken in accordance with the law. In the future, the allocation of ministerial portfolios must be based on relevant qualifications, administrative competence, and a deep understanding of the specific sector, rather than on political loyalty or personal connections. The practice of entrusting ministries that deal with human lives and the future of our children to incompetent political appointees must come to an end.
Holding office does not place anyone above accountability; possessing power does not exempt anyone from being answerable; and political affiliation can never supersede the rights of the public. True representation is not evidenced by perks, protocol, or a prolonged tenure in power, but rather by genuine improvements in the lives of the people. The public consciousness that has emerged through the platform of the Jammu & Kashmir Joint Public Action Committee has highlighted the vital importance of questioning those in power and demanding answers. This awareness will continue to grow; the performance of elected representatives will be subject to constant evaluation, and every official will be held to account for their time in office. Henceforth, the true benchmark in the state’s politics will be results, not claims; one’s identity will be defined by performance, not by the office held; and public trust will be determined not by speeches, but by the tangible, positive changes brought about in the lives of the people.
Share this content:
