Free Speech or Firestarter? Raja Ghulam Mujtaba and the Line Between Dissent and Disruption

In fragile democracies, the line between dissent and sedition is not just thin — it is often blurred, trampled, and then weaponized. The recent events in Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK), where Raja Ghulam Mujtaba delivered a venom-laced speech during an Iftar hosted by the Azad Awami Council (AAC), once again challenge us to ask: When does freedom of expression become a threat to national stability?

According to law enforcement authorities, Mujtaba’s March 25 speech was more than political critique. It was a calculated broadside against Pakistan’s state institutions, laced with incendiary rhetoric, unconstitutional demands, and thinly veiled attempts to provoke civil unrest. FIRs have since been filed against both Mujtaba and Sajjad Afzal in Rawalakot, as pressure mounts on the AAC to condemn the speech and distance itself from what many in AJK are calling a betrayal of national integrity.

The timing and tone of Mujtaba’s remarks — coming in the wake of heightened tensions in Kashmir and strategic recalibrations in the region — are telling. While political grievances in AJK are not new, the manner in which they are now being exploited by figures with alleged links to hostile intelligence agendas (HIAs) should not be ignored. Pakistan’s security apparatus has long walked the tightrope of upholding civil liberties while guarding against foreign manipulation. But when public platforms are turned into pulpits of provocation, the state has a duty to act — and swiftly.

Indeed, the District Magistrate of Bagh, Raja Muhammad Sadaqat Khan, minced no words when he said Mujtaba had insulted the martyrs of Kashmir. That statement cuts deeper than politics. In a region where sacrifice and struggle are woven into the national fabric, undermining the memory of those who gave their lives for the nation is not protest — it is provocation.

To be clear: criticism of the government, even of military policy, is not only permissible — it is vital in any democracy. But critique must be grounded in accountability, not anarchy. Speech that veers into hate, especially when directed at institutions tasked with safeguarding the country’s most volatile borders, risks becoming complicit in the very destabilization hostile actors desire.

This is not just a matter of law. It is a matter of responsibility — of knowing that in a region where the embers of unrest are never far from reigniting, words can carry the weight of war.

What’s more troubling is that this episode exposes the emerging strategy of hybrid warfare — not through missiles, but microphones. By laundering foreign agendas through local grievances, actors like Mujtaba weaponize speech not for change, but for chaos. That’s not patriotism. That’s sabotage.

The people of AJK — the real stakeholders in this story — deserve better. They have every right to demand more from the AAC, an organization that now finds itself at a moral and political crossroads. Will it stand with the nation, or with those who seek to fracture it from within?

Freedom of speech is sacred. But so is national cohesion. And when one is wielded to destroy the other, the state must draw the line — not in sand, but in statute.