Clarification and Policy Response Note On the 12 Refugee Seats in AJK and the Misplaced Critique of “Dual Privileges”

Dr. Syed Nazir Gilani

1. Introduction: Context and Purpose

This note provides a structured response to two recurring critiques concerning the governance framework in Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK):

• That the 12 refugee seats in the AJK Legislative Assembly are equivalent to the 24 vacant seats in the Indian-administered Jammu & Kashmir Assembly, and
• That refugees from Jammu & Kashmir who are settled in Pakistan unfairly benefit from “dual privileges” by participating in both Pakistani and AJK systems, allegedly to the detriment of local AJK residents.

These arguments misrepresent both the historical foundations and constitutional logic of refugee inclusion in AJK, and dangerously weaken Pakistan’s position on the Kashmir dispute.

---

2. Legal Distinction: AJK’s 12 Refugee Seats vs. India’s 24 Vacant Seats

The 12 refugee seats in AJK (6 for Valley refugees, 6 for Jammu refugees) are active and participatory electoral constituencies:

• They represent displaced State Subjects of the former princely State of Jammu and Kashmir, forcibly relocated to Pakistan following conflict, occupation, and war.
• These refugees are legally disenfranchised from voting or participating in their original constituencies under Indian control.
• Their inclusion is essential to the continuity of identity, political agency, and constitutional linkage to the undivided state of J&K.

By contrast, the 24 seats in the Indian-administered J&K Assembly:

• Are symbolic placeholders for regions under Pakistan’s administration (AJK and Gilgit-Baltistan), described by India as “Pakistan-occupied Kashmir.”
• Have remained vacant and non-contested since 1951 — a territorial assertion, not a political inclusion.
• Do not represent any refugee populations or displaced communities.

Conclusion: One system serves an actual displaced population; the other performs a notional territorial claim.

---

3. Rebuttal: The “Dual Privileges” Argument is Flawed

The claim that refugees unfairly enjoy “dual privileges” is factually flawed and ethically unjust.

a. Legal Continuity of State Subject Status

• Refugees from Jammu and Kashmir retain State Subject rights under the AJK Interim Constitution.
• Their participation in AJK’s governance is a continuation of their legal identity and historical connection, not an added privilege.
• Pakistani citizenship does not nullify their status as rightful stakeholders in the State of Jammu and Kashmir — a legal precedent extended to overseas Kashmiris as well.

b. Shared Fiscal Framework

• The AJK budget is centrally funded by the Government of Pakistan.
• Refugees and local residents draw from the same fiscal resources, with no evidence of double entitlements or parallel benefits.
• The “dual” privilege claim is a manufactured narrative, not grounded in economic reality.

c. Historical and Moral Responsibility

• These refugees are not economic migrants; they are victims of war, displacement, and demographic disruption.
• Their inclusion is an act of restorative justice, not distortion.
• Excluding them would amount to re-displacement — penalizing them a second time for a historical injustice.

---

4. A Dangerous Path: Repatriation and Collapse of the Kashmiri Case

A more profound danger lies in the trajectory that the anti-refugee narrative might create.

If Valley and Jammu refugees — disenfranchised and disillusioned — were to demand repatriation to Indian-administered Kashmir under UN Security Council Resolution 47, the consequences would be geopolitically fatal:

• The Kashmiri claim for self-determination would collapse.
• India would claim moral and territorial vindication, asserting that the refugee population voluntarily returned or chose to reintegrate under Indian sovereignty.
• Under Article 48 of the Jammu & Kashmir Constitution (1957) and India’s Parliament Resolution of February 1994, the entire region of Azad Kashmir (described as PoK) would be portrayed as rightfully Indian, without active international resistance.

In effect, a self-inflicted unraveling of the Kashmiri constituency would take place — leaving Pakistan isolated diplomatically and undermining decades of principled advocacy.

---

5. Anti-Refugee Sentiment: A Strategic and Moral Liability

The emerging anti-refugee discourse in AJK is not only unjust, it is strategically injurious:

• It fractures the unified constituency of Pakistan’s Kashmir policy — based on the indivisibility of all Jammu & Kashmir State Subjects.
• It provides rhetorical ammunition to Indian narratives that Pakistan is unable to represent Kashmiris fairly.
• It pushes the conflict into the dangerous zone of permanent and reciprocal occupations — turning what is a dispute into an irreversible partition.

Policy coherence demands solidarity, not scapegoating.

---

6. Global Context: Affirmative Inclusion, Not Exclusion

Refugee representation in AJK is not an aberration; it is consistent with global norms of affirmative action and post-conflict justice.

International Parallels:

• UK: NHS programs encourage hiring Pahari-speaking professionals to serve British-Kashmiri communities.
• USA: Affirmative action enables inclusion of historically marginalized Black and Latino populations.
• India: Caste-based reservations ensure representation of historically excluded communities.
• BBC: Positive action plans aim to rectify structural disparities in media and leadership.

The refugee seats in AJK are a constitutional mechanism of justice, not favoritism — a model, not an anomaly.

---

7. Historical Warning: The Enoch Powell Precedent

The language of “dual privileges” echoes the racially charged politics of Enoch Powell’s 1968 “Rivers of Blood” speech, which opposed racial integration in the UK:

“As I look ahead, I am filled with foreboding; like the Roman, I seem to see the River Tiber foaming with much blood.”
– Enoch Powell, Birmingham, 1968

Powell masked exclusionary politics under the rhetoric of fairness — much like how current AJK debates mask ethno-regional anxiety as calls for equity.

History judged Powell harshly. Pakistan must not replicate that mistake by turning its back on displaced Kashmiris.

---

8. Policy Perspective: The Path Forward

Recommendations:

• Expand job creation and public services for all AJK residents, including refugees.
• Protect the legal and constitutional unity of all J&K State Subjects.
• Develop civic education programs to counter anti-refugee disinformation.
• Integrate refugee representation in future conflict-resolution frameworks.

Inclusion is not a liability — it is Pakistan’s strategic and moral advantage.

---

9 Final Summary

• The 12 refugee seats in AJK uphold legal, moral, and political commitments to the displaced people of Jammu and Kashmir.
• The “dual privilege” critique is factually incorrect, strategically misguided, and ethically unsound.
• Weakening refugee participation would erode the Kashmiri case for self-determination and embolden Indian territorial consolidation.
• The policy goal should be integration, not fragmentation — consistent with international law, Pakistan’s commitments, and the unfinished agenda of the Kashmir dispute.

---

Dr. Syed Nazir Gilani
President, JKCHR
(In special consultative status with the United Nations)
For enquiries and clarifications: dr-nazirgilani@jkchr.com
16 June 2025

• Facebook
• WhatsApp
• X