By Justice (R) Syed Manzoor Hussain Gillani
The issue of Kashmiri migrants settled in Pakistan holding reserved seats in the Legislative Assembly of Azad Jammu & Kashmir (AJK) and 19% in services and professional colleges has once again resurfaced, raising fundamental constitutional, political, and moral questions. These seats were originally created to ensure that the displaced population from Indian-occupied Jammu & Kashmir, who sought refuge in Pakistan after 1947 , 1965 , 1989 and subsequent upheavals , have a voice in the politics of the State.
Historical and International Context
The arrangement drew its legitimacy from the unfinished agenda of Jammu & Kashmir’s right to self-determination, guaranteed through United Nations Security Council (UNSC) resolutions of 1948–49. These resolutions not only envisaged a plebiscite but also recognized refugees from either side as an integral constituency of that exercise.
However, the 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol, while defining the rights of displaced persons, also stress eventual integration into the host country’s political, economic, and legal structures. Refugees cannot indefinitely claim political representation in two different states simultaneously.
The AJK Anomaly
Kashmiri migrants settled in Pakistan enjoy full Pakistani citizenship: they hold CNICs and passports, vote in Pakistan’s national and provincial elections, and share in public employment, land, and resources. Yet they also exercise political rights in AJK, controlling 12 out of 53 seats in the Assembly — almost one-quarter of the House and 19 % of jobs in the service of AJK without being residents of AJK besides enjoying the privilege of jobs through out Pakistan .
Entire AJK system is otherwise overwhelmingly dominated by non residents and non representatives of AJK without being accountable to AJK assembly and Government , such as AJK council , Ministry of Kashmir affairs , parliamentary Kashmir committee , Hurriat conference , Government of Pakistan and its institutions operating in AJK .
This has far-reaching consequences:
- Double Representation – The same community votes in both Pakistan’s legislatures and AJK’s Assembly, contrary to the principle of “one person, one vote.” Kashmiri refugees settled in Pakistan are vividly segregated from ajk residents .. They are legally Pakistani citizens under sec 14B of citizenship Act of Pakistan but ajk people are not And it is “ notionally a foreign territory “ to which government of Pakistan has conceded in the courts in Pakistan many times . ( although I don’t personally concede to this notion ) .
- Distorted Governance – Migrant constituencies are decisive in forming
or toppling governments in Muzaffarabad, even though these voters do not
reside in AJK nor share its day-to-day governance burdens. - Resource Strain – Migrants compete for AJK’s limited jobs, including
2% jobs quota in federation ,scholarships, and
Development schemes, despite being settled in Pakistan’s provinces where
opportunities are widest . This creates resentment among AJK’s indigenous
population. May at any erupt like Bangladesh crises of last year .
Litigation on Quota has already culminated in scraping quota system , that
needs to be politically and legally acknowledged , lest it creates crises like
last year’s AJK‘ns “ joint Action Committees call. ” Government of Pakistan
and AJK leaked under pressure even to their unreasonable demands. - Instrument of Influence – Successive governments in Islamabad and
provinces manure election of refugee seats and then use them as leverage to
engineer political outcomes in AJK, diluting the spirit of self-governance.
Comparative International Practices.
The AJK arrangement is not only unique but anomalous when compared with global precedents.
Across the world, displaced populations may retain their identity and political aspirations, but
they are rarely given simultaneous legislative rights in two sovereign jurisdictions.
- Palestine: Millions of Palestinian refugees live in Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria.
Despite being victims of occupation and displacement, they do not elect
representatives to the parliaments of Palestine while residing abroad. Instead, their
representation is maintained symbolically through the Palestine Liberation
Organization (PLO) and international forums. - Cyprus: After the Turkish intervention of 1974, large numbers of Greek
Cypriots were displaced to the South and Turkish Cypriots to the North. While both
communities are recognized as victims of division, political representation is tied
strictly to residence within the Republic of Cyprus or the Turkish-administered
North. - Bosnia and Herzegovina: Following the Dayton Accords (1995), refugees
and internally displaced persons were given rights of return and property restitution,
but political representation is only based on current residence within Bosnia. - Kashmiri Pandits in Indian-administered J&K: Displaced Pandits living in
camps in Jammu or Delhi remain on the rolls of their ancestral constituencies. They
cast votes by postal ballot or at special polling stations, but they are not given
reserved seats nor parallel constituencies in the J&K Assembly. Their linkage
remains symbolic, without creating double representation.
. Under AJK election laws no state subject can be register in more then one
electoral area which is a punishable offence , neither can a foreign be registered in
AJK election laws .
In short, no international or national precedent allows citizens of one country to
indefinitely legislate for another region merely because of ancestral or refugee
status.
International Dispute Dimension
The Jammu & Kashmir is an internationally recognized dispute. No domestic law in Pakistan, India, or AJK can alter its final status. Article 257 of the Constitution of Pakistan enshrines this principle, guaranteeing that the future of J&K will be decided by its people according to their free will. The continuation of refugee seats in AJK’s Assembly, while originally
meant to preserve this link, must not mutate into a tool for political manipulation that undermines
the very dispute Pakistan seeks to keep alive. Instead ,
THE IDENTITY OF THESE REFUGEES CAN BE PRESERVED BY ENTERING THEM IN THE
“ REMARKS” column of their their voters list, as reserved voters in the plebiscite ( which is not
visible even in distant future . )
Time for Reconsideration.
More than seven decades after partition, the refugee question in AJK needs a realistic review. While the symbolic link of migrants to their homeland should never be severed, it must not translate into a permanent distortion of AJK’s democratic institutions. It is a big democratic deficit .
Possible alternatives could include: - Strengthening the “ALL PARTIES HURIAT CONFERENCE “ which is recognised by Government of Pakistan as sole representative of Kashmiris .
• Reserving three symbolic seats , ach from Kashmir, Jammu and Ladakh regions , on the recommendation of Hurriat Conference without voting rights, akin to the system of “observer members” in international parliaments. - Redirecting resources towards the education, Health snd development of
AJK and Gilgit Baltistan rather than political bargaining and day dreaming.
Conclusion; The cause of Jammu & Kashmir’s self-determination, recognized by the United Nations and upheld by Pakistan’s own Constitution, cannot be advanced through mechanisms that
compromise democratic equity in AJK itself. International law, comparative refugee experience, and principles of constitutional morality all suggest that representation must reflect genuine residency and responsibility. It is a whimsical approach to empower a sect twice at the altar of other , just a fanciful thought .
Migrants deserve solidarity, but the people of AJK equally deserve sovereignty over their own political will and resources. Unless this imbalance is addressed, the Assembly risks becoming an arena not of Kashmiri self-expression, but of perpetual external manipulation.
