By Dr. Syed Nazir Gilani
The call to abolish the 12 refugee constituencies in the Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK) Legislative Assembly is not a harmless suggestion—it is a dangerous attack on the political identity of a divided and displaced people. These seats are neither a burden nor a privilege. They are a constitutional and moral safeguard: a reminder that the future of Jammu and Kashmir remains unresolved and that every displaced Kashmiri has a stake in shaping it.
The Forgotten Exodus: Displacement That Shaped a Nation
The refugee constituencies exist because of a history soaked in blood and exile. The 1947–48 war in Jammu and Kashmir triggered one of South Asia’s most devastating forced migrations. Tens of thousands of Kashmiri Muslims fled massacres in Jammu province, braving mountains, rivers, and violence to reach safety in Pakistan’s cities—Sialkot, Lahore, Rawalpindi, Gujranwala—and in Azad Kashmir itself.
These refugees were not resettled by choice but driven out by war. Their homes, farms, and businesses were left behind, and their right to return was guaranteed by United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan (UNCIP) resolutions of August 13, 1948, and January 5, 1949. That right remains unfulfilled. The 12 refugee constituencies are not symbolic gestures; they are a political lifeline ensuring these voices remain part of Kashmir’s future.
Quebec’s Lesson: Exclusion Breeds Resistance
Those advocating the abolition of refugee seats should heed the lesson of the 1995 Quebec referendum. Quebec’s separatist leaders sought independence, yet they sidelined the Cree and Inuit communities, assuming they could dictate the fate of Indigenous peoples whose ancestral lands covered vast swathes of Quebec.
The result was disastrous for Quebec’s separatists: Cree and Inuit voters overwhelmingly rejected independence, asserting their right to self-determination and decisively tipping the referendum against secession. Quebec’s disregard for Indigenous voices undermined its own cause and legitimacy.
Kashmir risks repeating that mistake. Excluding displaced Kashmiris from representation would fracture trust, deepen resentment, and invite external criticism—while India would exploit such moves to undermine Pakistan-administered Kashmir’s moral standing.
International and Constitutional Guarantees
The AJK Legislative Assembly is not a provincial body but a State-wide representative institution created under UNCIP’s framework. Pakistan administers this territory in trust, not as sovereign, pending a UN-supervised plebiscite.
Article 257 of Pakistan’s Constitution explicitly affirms that “when the people of Jammu and Kashmir decide to accede to Pakistan, the relationship between Pakistan and that State shall be determined in accordance with the wishes of the people of that State.” Refugees are part of that sovereign people; their representation is a legal and moral obligation.
Hypocrisy and Double Standards
The hypocrisy of this demand cannot be ignored. Kashmiris in the diaspora have reached the highest offices abroad: serving in the British Cabinet, representing constituencies in the UK Parliament, and even joining the House of Lords. Their achievements are rightly celebrated.
Yet these same voices accuse refugee legislators—Kashmiris displaced by war—of draining AJK’s resources. If democracies abroad embrace Kashmiri participation at every level, why should Kashmir itself silence its own exiled citizens? This debate is not about finances; it is a test of solidarity and justice.
Beyond Numbers: The Value of Representation
Critics point to the small size of the refugee electorate. But numbers cannot measure justice. These constituencies are a constitutional safeguard, a bulwark against political erasure. They ensure that refugees remain part of Kashmir’s political life and that their sacrifices are not forgotten.
Representation here is about principle, not arithmetic: geography cannot define political worth, nor can borders erase belonging.
The Stakes: Kashmir’s Unity and Moral Authority
In the wake of India’s unilateral actions of August 5, 2019, which stripped Jammu and Kashmir of its autonomy, AJK must demonstrate inclusivity and moral authority. The refugee constituencies connect divided families, a scattered diaspora, and a wounded homeland. They prove that despite its fragmentation, Kashmir remains one political entity.
Quebec’s experience offers a stark warning: disenfranchisement breeds mistrust, and mistrust destroys legitimacy. Kashmir cannot afford to weaken itself from within.
Conclusion
The 12 refugee constituencies are not bureaucratic curiosities; they are anchors of justice, history, and continuity. They stand as living evidence of displacement and sacrifice, ensuring Kashmir’s story remains whole and its people remain politically empowered.
To abolish them would erase the very voices that embody Kashmir’s struggle, weaken AJK’s moral standing, and deliver a victory to those who wish to bury the Kashmir question. Instead of silencing refugees, we must amplify them. Their seats are not a drain on resources—they are proof that Kashmir’s cause is alive, just, and indivisible.
Author: President, Jammu and Kashmir Council for Human Rights (JKCHR) – in Special Consultative Status with the ECOSOC of the United Nations. Former member of the International Platform of Jurists for East Timor (IPJET) until East Timor’s independence, and representative of the Unrepresented Peoples and Nations at the UN World Conference on Human Rights, Vienna.