I have seen many of your posts on X using this newly coined distinction between "Kashmiri" and "Pahari." As far as I understand, having followed you for quite some time, you are from Kashmir and most probably from Poonch. Could you explain what exactly you mean when you use the terms "Kashmiri" and "Pahari"?
According to history and geography (books/evidences) — not the versions endorsed by Maryam Nawaz or army generals —the territories of Jammu, Poonch, Kashmir, Ladakh, Gilgit, and Baltistan were historically part of the State of Jammu and Kashmir. Being mountainous regions, the people living there have generally been regarded as "Pahari" in a geographical sense while identifying as "Kashmiri" in a national sense. So, how does your distinction fit these people, if you can elaborate?
Furthermore, the current agitation in PAJK extends across the entire belt, from Bhimber - Bagh, which were historically parts of Poonch, to Neelum Valley - Muzaffarabad , areas that were parts of the Kashmir Valley region before partition . Therefore, if by "Kashmiri" you are referring only to the people of the Kashmir Valley, then, in a broader historical and political context, your newly coined distinction between "Pahari" and "Kashmiri" does not make much sense.
Secondly, this taunting post about slogans and your claim in a few previous X posts that JAAC wants to abolish the 12 Legislative Assembly seats reserved for Kashmiris living in Pakistan is contextually misleading too, as about half a million people from J&K who reside in Pakistan, either as refugees or settlers , are not all from the Kashmir Valley. These 12 seats are not allocated exclusively to refugees from the Valley. Given this reality, how does your argument hold in the current scenario?
The real issue, which you are well aware of - whether in Islamabad or in Pakistan's peripheral regions - is the white elephant in the room: an institution with an ever-increasing appetite for power and wealth and a continuous refusal of people 's democratic rights.