The Dangerous Call to Abolish AJK’s 12 Refugee Seats
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.
India’s 1948 Pledge at the UN: The Forgotten Truth That Undermines August 2019
On 15 January 1948, at the 227th meeting of the United Nations Security Council, India’s representative made a statement that continues to haunt its claims over Jammu and Kashmir. Speaking with urgency, he told the Council: “That communication summarizes in clear terms the impasse… and the threat to international peace and security… if it is not solved immediately… I desire at the outset of this investigation to make a fuller statement of our case with a view to assisting the Security Council in obtaining a comprehensive and realistic appreciation of the problem that faces it in this connexion.” This was no routine diplomatic exchange. It was a formal plea under Article 35 of the UN Charter, voluntarily internationalizing the Kashmir question and acknowledging its potential to destabilize global peace. India was not dragged to the UN; it chose to go there. India’s Entry into Kashmir Was Temporary and Conditional India’s presence in Jammu and Kashmir was never absolute or permanent. Its entry in October 1947 was based solely on specified terms of reference: to act as a subordinate supplement to the State administration —not to replace it—and to defend the territory, protect life, property, and the honour of the Kashmiri people. The Instrument of Accession itself was limited, provisional, and explicitly subject to ratification by the people of Jammu and Kashmir through a plebiscite. By later attempting to assert full sovereignty, India has violated the very conditions of its own entry into Kashmir, undermining both the spirit and letter of its commitments to the Maharaja’s government, to Pakistan, and to the international community. A Case Built on India’s Own Words At the UN in January 1948, India assured the Security Council that Kashmiris would be “enabled to carve out for themselves… the economic and political destiny that awaits them.” These were not casual remarks but solemn commitments that defined the legal and political treatment of Kashmir at the UN. Acknowledgement of Disputed Status India openly conceded that Jammu and Kashmir was not a settled part of its territory. Acceptance of UN Jurisdiction By invoking Chapter VI of the UN Charter, India invited international adjudication, surrendering exclusivity over Kashmir. Recognition of Pakistan’s Role India even sought the Council’s assistance in “persuading the Pakistan Government,” recognizing Islamabad as a legitimate party to the dispute. This foundational speech established that India’s claim over Kashmir was provisional and conditional, to be finalized through a UN-supervised plebiscite. The Kashmiris of Today: A Global and Awakened Nation Seventy-seven years later, the people of Kashmir are not the same as those India described in 1948. Far from being voiceless or isolated, they are now a politically awakened nation, deeply aware of their denied rights, and spread across the globe. From the streets of Srinagar to diaspora communities in London, Toronto, and New York, Kashmiris speak with one voice: they want to be counted through a UN-supervised vote to decide their future. India cannot indefinitely rule an unwilling people. The international community has a duty —not merely a choice—to respond to these voices, to uphold commitments enshrined in the UN Charter, and to ensure that Kashmiris are not silenced by military force or constitutional fiat. The Futility of Suppression History offers a clear lesson: no army in the world has ever succeeded in vanquishing a people’s dissent and resistance. Empires and occupations have crumbled under the weight of popular will, and India’s military might is no exception. The prolonged siege of Jammu and Kashmir has not subdued its people; it has only deepened their resolve. The curtains will inevitably have to be drawn on this cycle of suppression, because justice and self-determination cannot be indefinitely denied. The 2019 Betrayal On 5 August 2019, India revoked Article 370 of its Constitution, dismantled Jammu and Kashmir’s statehood, and carved it into two Union Territories. These unilateral moves weren’t merely constitutional changes; they were a repudiation of India’s own pledges. 1948 Indian Position 2019 Indian Action Kashmir dispute threatens international peace; UN intervention sought. Kashmir declared an “internal matter”; UN role rejected. Pakistan acknowledged as a party. Pakistan dismissed as a stakeholder; bilateralism invoked. Kashmiris promised a “free choice” over their future. Autonomy revoked; communications blackouts and military lockdown imposed. India’s narrative has flipped 180 degrees—from a nation seeking the UN’s help to a state dismissing international oversight altogether. Why This Forgotten Record Matters India’s January 1948 statement is more than a diplomatic relic; it’s a legal cornerstone: Reclaiming the Truth The world must be reminded: Kashmir’s international status was not imposed on India; it was accepted by India. The January 1948 speech proves that India’s post-2019 claims are an attempt to rewrite history and erase obligations enshrined in the UN Charter. A Test of International Law and Credibility Kashmir is not a frozen conflict; it is a litmus test for the integrity of international law. India’s 1948 pledge was explicit: Kashmir’s future was to be decided by its people, under UN auspices. Today, a politically awakened and globally connected Kashmiri nation is demanding that promise be honoured. The question before the world is stark: Will the Security Council defend the commitments it once made binding, or will it allow them to be buried under the weight of unilateralism and military might that history shows will ultimately fail? The author is President of the Jammu and Kashmir Council for Human Rights (JKCHR), an NGO in Special Consultative Status with the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC). He has served on the International Platform of Jurists for East Timor (IPJET) and represented Unrepresented Peoples and Nations at the UN World Conference on Human Rights in Vienna.
A Legal Roadmap for Kashmir’s Resolution
Dr. Syed Nazir Gilani Kashmir remains firmly under the UN’s continuing jurisdiction. Arbitration Clause 6 in UN Security Council Resolution 91 (1951) insulates the dignity of State territories and the principle of self-determination. On 5 August 2019 India assumed powers it never possessed. “Resolution 91’s arbitration clause proves that Kashmir is not an internal or bilateral issue but an unsettled international dispute under UN jurisdiction. The Security Council retains the authority to compel arbitration through the ICJ, rendering India’s unilateral actions legally void. JKCHR calls on the UN to enforce its own resolutions and restore the right of self-determination to the people of Jammu and Kashmir.” On 30 March 1951, the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 91, which reaffirmed a truth that remains as relevant today as it was then: the status of Jammu and Kashmir cannot be decided unilaterally. The resolution reaffirmed that the future of the territory rests on a free and impartial plebiscite conducted under UN auspices. But buried within this resolution is a powerful tool that has been consistently ignored—**Paragraph 6**, which calls for arbitration under the auspices of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) if India and Pakistan cannot reach an agreement. This arbitration clause is not a suggestion; it is a directive from the Security Council. Both India and Pakistan accepted the UN framework, meaning that neither can claim sovereign authority over the territory or reject third-party intervention. India’s actions on 5 August 2019, when it revoked Article 370 and unilaterally annexed Jammu and Kashmir, directly violate these solemn commitments made to the UN, Pakistan, and the Kashmiri people. Resolution 91, reinforced by Resolution 122 (1957), freezes the question of sovereignty and prohibits domestic measures to alter Kashmir’s status. Arbitration under ICJ leadership was built into this framework as an enforcement mechanism, giving the Council a clear path to break the current deadlock. It is time to revisit this provision and restore international oversight. For too long, India has claimed that Kashmir is a bilateral or internal matter. Paragraph 6 proves the opposite: the Security Council itself mandated neutral adjudication, and its resolutions remain legally binding under international law. By invoking this clause, the UN can reaffirm its primary responsibility for peace and security and revive a process that India once accepted but now seeks to evade. The 30 March 1951, UN Security Council Resolution 91 (1951), affirming that Jammu and Kashmir’s status cannot be determined unilaterally and must be resolved through a **free and impartial plebiscite under UN auspices**. Importantly, Paragraph 6 of the Resolution introduces a binding arbitration mechanism: It “Calls upon the parties… to accept arbitration upon all outstanding points of difference… such arbitration to be carried out by an Arbitrator or a panel of Arbitrators, to be appointed by the President of the ICJ after consultation with the parties.” This clause entrenches third-party dispute resolution and places Kashmir firmly under the UN’s continuing jurisdiction. JKCHR urges the international community, especially UN Member States, to demand the implementation of Paragraph 6 of Resolution 91. This is not a new solution—it is a standing commitment. Enforcing this clause would not only counter India’s unilateralism but also restore credibility to the UN system, offering the Kashmiri people the justice and international protection they were promised over seven decades ago.
Yasin Malik: From Gun to Peace — Why India Must Reconsider
By Dr Syed Nazir Gilani Mohammad Yasin Malik, chairman of the Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front (JKLF), is today facing two life sentences. India’s National Investigation Agency (NIA) has petitioned to escalate these into a death sentence. This pursuit is not only harsh but unjust, and it risks placing India’s judiciary on the wrong side of history once again. A Personal Connection I first met Yasin Malik in Srinagar during my 16-day visit to Kashmir in December 1996–January 1997. He attended a reception I hosted for leaders of the All Parties Hurriyat Conference at the historic Ahdoos Hotel. Later, he invited me to his home, where his mother and sister offered me a warm family farewell, marked by dignity and prayers. We met several times again—in London at my home, in the House of Commons, at Dr. Siraj Shah’s residence, and at Barrister Tramboo’s house. Over the years, JKCHR submitted five detailed reports on Kashmiri prisoners to the United Nations, consistently advocating for their rights, including Yasin Malik’s. In June 2022, the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Kashmir in the UK also petitioned for his release. Yasin Malik’s wife and daughter are admirable people, caught in this tragedy of politics and punishment. His daughter has tried to spearhead a call for his release—an effort that reveals the deeply human dimension of his imprisonment. From Militancy to Dialogue I have never endorsed the decision to introduce militancy into Kashmir in the late 1980s. Jammu and Kashmir was not under colonial occupation but under a United Nations framework, where India was charged by Security Council Resolution 47 (21 April 1948) with implementing over two dozen obligations leading to a plebiscite. The responsibility to enforce compliance lay with the Security Council, not with armed groups. Yet, when militancy did emerge, I defended militants on the basis of six elements identified by Britain at the UN Security Council—recognising the political and human context of their actions. Yasin Malik, however, distinguished himself by eventually renouncing armed struggle and choosing the path of peaceful dialogue. JKLF became a founding member of the Hurriyat Conference, which itself followed a constitutional discipline aligned with the UN framework. An Ambassador of Peace Yasin Malik played a pivotal role in efforts to construct peace in Kashmir. At the landmark November 2000 “Give Peace a Chance” Conference in Delhi—jointly sponsored by think tanks from India and Pakistan and attended by international voices—he opened the proceedings. I too addressed a session chaired by Justice Rajinder Sachar, then Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court and a UN human rights expert. At that time, militancy still gripped the Valley. To call for peace, as Malik did, was unfashionable, even dangerous. Yet he dared to advocate ending bloodshed and replacing it with guarantees for life and dignity. He spread out, metaphorically, a carpet for a peaceful walk when few others had the courage to do so. India’s Misplaced Justice An ambassador of peace should not be condemned to life imprisonment—let alone face the prospect of a death sentence. The move by NIA is not just punitive but profoundly lacking in fairness and grace. India’s judiciary has often erred under the pressure of populist sentiment in Kashmir-related cases. It was unkind and historically unjust to Maqbool Butt and Afzal Guru, both executed in circumstances that jail authorities themselves later described as “rough justice.” To repeat this cycle with Yasin Malik would stain India’s democratic and judicial credibility irreparably. If leaders like Atal Bihari Vajpayee and Dr. Manmohan Singh were alive today, their conscience would not allow such an escalation. They understood that Kashmir required bridges, not walls. — The UN Framework and India’s Own Commitments Under Paragraph 12 of UN Security Council Resolution 47 (21 April 1948), the Government of India has an obligation that “all subjects of the State of Jammu and Kashmir, regardless of creed, caste or party, will be safe and free in expressing their views and in voting on the question of the accession of the State… with freedom of the press, speech, assembly, and travel, including freedom of lawful entry and exit.” Escalating Malik’s punishment violates both this explicit undertaking and the broader preventive jurisdiction of the Security Council under which the Kashmir question remains inscribed. Conclusion Yasin Malik is not a candidate for the gallows. He is a candidate for reconciliation and peace. His transformation from armed struggle to peaceful advocacy should have been recognised as an asset, not punished as a crime. To seek his death is to betray the very principle that India’s soldiers were once sent to Kashmir to uphold: the protection of life. India must step back from this precipice. Justice in Kashmir has too often been delivered at the scaffold. This must not happen again.
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): 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: By contrast, the 24 seats in the Indian-administered J&K Assembly: Feature Special Seats Who is Represented Electoral Status Legal Foundation Voter Participation AJK (Pakistan-administered) 12 seats for displaced refugees Displaced State Subjects Active and contested AJK Interim Constitution 1974 Yes – through refugee constituencies J&K (India-administered) 24 seats for symbolic territorial claim Alleged residents of PoK (non-participating) Vacant and uncontested Indian J&K Constitution / Post-2019 statutes No 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 b. Shared Fiscal Framework c. Historical and Moral Responsibility 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: 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: 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: 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: Inclusion is not a liability — it is Pakistan’s strategic and moral advantage. 9 Final Summary 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
Conscience in Conflict: Right to Refuse to Kill
By Dr. Syed Nazir Gilani In a world increasingly polarized by war, nationalism, and military compulsion, the right to say no—to dissent in uniform, to refuse to kill—is a profoundly human and deeply legal act. Conscientious objection to military service is not just a matter of personal belief. It is recognized in international law and is central to the very principles of human dignity and the laws of war. A Legal Right Grounded in Human Conscience The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) affirms in Article 18 the right to “freedom of thought, conscience and religion.” This right was given greater legal force by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR, 1966), whose Article 18 has been interpreted by the UN Human Rights Committee to include conscientious objection to military service. The UN Commission on Human Rights’s 1998 resolution explicitly recognized conscientious objection as a legitimate act of conscience and urged states to accommodate it. In Europe, the landmark European Court of Human Rights decision in Bayatyan v. Armenia (2011) affirmed that Article 9 of the European Convention (protecting freedom of conscience and religion) extends to military refusal based on deeply held beliefs. In short, international law does not merely allow for conscientious objection—it protects it. The Case of Muhammad Ali: Conscience in the Ring Perhaps no single individual embodies this moral stance better than Muhammad Ali, who refused to be drafted into the Vietnam War in 1967 on religious and moral grounds as a member of the Nation of Islam. He was convicted of draft evasion, stripped of his heavyweight title, and threatened with years in prison. But in 1971, in Clay v. United States, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously overturned the conviction, acknowledging the sincerity of his beliefs. It was a landmark affirmation of conscience over compulsion, and it left a legacy far beyond the boxing ring. Iraq War Resisters: A Moral Exodus Fast forward to the Iraq War. Numerous U.S. soldiers, believing the invasion to be unjust and illegal, refused deployment and fled to Canada, seeking asylum. Their moral arguments mirrored Ali’s—refusal to fight in what they saw as an illegal war. However, Canada denied most of them refugee status, insisting that desertion was not, in itself, a basis for asylum unless the individual would be compelled to commit war crimes. Figures like Jeremy Hinzman became international symbols of the moral and legal limits of dissent in democracies. Israel and Iran: Two Systems, One Struggle In Israel, limited recognition of conscientious objection exists—primarily for religious objectors. But selective objection, such as refusal to serve in the occupied Palestinian territories or carry out bombings, is not recognized. In 2003, a group of 27 Israeli Air Force pilots—known as the “Pilots’ Letter” signatories—publicly refused to fly missions targeting Palestinian areas. They were punished but sparked an essential public debate about military ethics in a democratic society. In contrast, Iran, a theocratic and authoritarian regime, does not recognize any form of conscientious objection. Refusal to serve or obey military orders—even on moral or religious grounds—is met with harsh penalties, including imprisonment or worse. While some Iranian pilots defected during the Iran–Iraq War, their acts were treated as political betrayals, not moral stands. A Global Tradition of Refusal History is full of those who paid the price for refusing to kill: These examples underscore that the moral courage to disobey unjust orders is not new—but neither is it easy. Refusing to Bomb Civilians: Legal and Moral Obligation Can a soldier or pilot lawfully refuse to bomb civilians? Yes—and in fact, they are obligated to under international humanitarian law. The Geneva Conventions and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court define the deliberate targeting of civilians as a war crime. Soldiers who carry out such acts cannot invoke the defense of “just following orders”. Conversely, those who refuse such orders are protected, both morally and legally. The Gap Between Law and Reality And yet, legal recognition does not always translate into protection. In many parts of the world, political agendas, military obedience, and national security narratives override international norms. Objectors—whether American, Israeli, Russian, Iranian, or Palestinian—face isolation, imprisonment, or worse. Still, the right to conscience remains a cornerstone of law and humanity. It is a principle rooted not just in treaties, but in the recognition that every human being has the right to refuse to kill when their conscience says no. In an age when militarism often silences morality, the voice of the conscientious objector is not only necessary—it is sacred. The author is President JKCHR – NGO in special consultative status with the United Nations Dr-nazirgilani@jkchr.com
JAAC Narrative – Reservations on Certain Positions
Memorandum – Addressing Misconceptions in the Joint Awami JAAC Narrative – Reservations on Certain Positions JKCHR MemorandumRefugee Representation in AJK Assembly: Reaffirming Legitimacy and Addressing Misconceptions in the Joint Awami Action Committee Narrative The Jammu and Kashmir Council for Human Rights (JKCHR) acknowledges and supports the broader Charter of Demands issued by the Joint Awami Action Committee (JAAC). However, we express clear reservations on certain positions articulated by some voices within or around the Committee concerning the twelve (12) refugee seats in the Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK) Legislative Assembly. These 12 seats—six (6) for displaced persons from the Kashmir Valley and six (6) from Jammu—are a foundational element of the Assembly and must be preserved with reforms, not scrapped. I. Reaffirming the Legal and Moral Basis of Refugee Representation II. On the Matter of Nationality and Political Representation III. Refuting “No Taxation, No Representation” Argument IV. Jurisdiction and Electoral Legitimacy V. Conclusion JKCHR supports the overall reform and accountability movement led by JAAC, but we caution against positions that seek to delegitimize refugee representation. These 12 seats are not a political concession but a constitutional and humanitarian necessity, rooted in international law and the UN Charter. Any genuine reform must aim at enhancing the performance and accountability of these representatives—not at erasing the rights of the displaced. JKCHR remains committed to defending the inalienable political rights of all citizens of Jammu and Kashmir, irrespective of displacement or domicile, as enshrined in international law and protected under the UNCIP resolutions. Dr. Syed Nazir GilaniPresident –JKCHR(In special Consultative Status with the United Nations)
JKCHR POLICY MEMORANDUM
Accountability, Representation and the Future of the 12 Refugee Seats in the AJK Legislative Assembly Date: 28 May 2025In Continuation of: JKCHR’s earlier memorandum on refugee representation in AJK Assembly I. Introduction This Memorandum responds to the ongoing debate on proposals to scrap the 12 reserved seats in the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly, which represent the displaced populations from Jammu and Kashmir Valley and Jammu Province, now living across the four provinces of Pakistan. These seats were designed not as political favours but as constitutional and moral instruments to ensure that the most marginalised—those forcibly removed from their ancestral homes—retain political visibility and agency. JKCHR contends that scrapping these seats without establishing a process of accountability and performance review would amount to the formal disenfranchisement of a displaced community. Such a move contradicts Pakistan’s international obligations under the UNCIP Resolutions and undermines the foundational promise of the AJK Assembly to act as a trustee of the people of Jammu and Kashmir until the final disposition of the State. II. Three Distinct Categories of Representation 1. Displaced and Disenfranchised: 2. Reservation in Settled Territories: 3. Diaspora Representation: III. Principle of Vote as a Trust – Not a Number Game It is important to acknowledge that the 12 refugee constituencies are smaller in population size compared to the territorial constituencies of locally elected members in AJK. However, their constitutional and moral importance is not diminished by their smaller voter base. The principle at stake is not numerical equality, but constitutional parity and protection of disenfranchised voices. Representation is a matter of right and justice, not arithmetic. This is best illustrated by the example from Gujarat, India, where a polling booth is established every election cycle in the Banej forest for a single registered voter, Hindu monk Mahant Haridas Udaseen. The booth is manned by six election officials and two policemen for the entire day, despite the fact that no other voter exists in the area. The commitment here is to democratic integrity, not voter count. Likewise, in the context of AJK, the vote of a displaced person carries the same constitutional weight as any other citizen’s vote. Denying that representation because the constituency is small betrays both the spirit of justice and international norms of protecting displaced communities. IV. Abuse and Breach of Trust by Refugee Members Despite the foundational importance of these 12 refugee seats, the performance of their elected representatives has been dismal. They have: This systemic failure has eroded public trust and delegitimised these seats in the eyes of the local electorate—rightly so. However, the betrayal by representatives does not invalidate the constituency. Instead, it calls for accountability mechanisms, not abolition. V. A Crisis Involving All 53 Members It must be noted that all 53 members of the AJK Assembly have been part of a broader regime of deceit and dysfunction, far removed from their oath and duties. The misuse of the 12 refugee members as power brokers reflects deeper malaise in the Assembly’s operations, including quid pro quo politics, the erasure of voter intent, and a departure from the fundamental purpose of self-determination. VI. Recommendations and Remedies 1. Enforce Accountability: 2. Reaffirm Representation, Reform Process: 3. Introduce Voter Recall Mechanisms: 4. End Political Instrumentalisation: 5. Educate and Mobilise the Constituency: VII. Conclusion The sanctity of representation must not be violated due to numerical bias or political opportunism. Scrapping the 12 refugee seats would be a constitutional and humanitarian injustice—a final disenfranchisement of people already displaced from their homeland. The model of one vote in the forests of Gir in Gujarat reminds us that democracy protects the dignity of every voice, however few in number. Likewise, the refugee vote in AJK must be honoured not as a numerical advantage but as a constitutional and moral obligation. JKCHR urges the government, civil society, and the international community to support a stringent accountability framework rather than succumbing to the temptation of erasure. These seats must be preserved and purified—not abolished and forgotten. Prepared by:JKCHR Policy DeskIn Public and Constitutional InterestFor submission to AJK authorities, AJ&K Council, Government of Pakistan, legal forums, civil society platforms and UN agencies, For clarification or enquiry, please contact:📧 admin@jkchr.org Dr. Syed Nazir GilaniPresident, Jammu and Kashmir Council for Human Rights(In Special Consultative Status with the United Nations)
Policy Memorandum – 12 Refugee Seats
Subject: Legal and Political Merits of Retaining the 12 Refugee Seats in the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly To: Members of the Legislative Assembly of Azad Jammu and Kashmir; Joint Awami Action Committee, MuzaffarabadFrom: Legal Department, Jammu and Kashmir Council for Human Rights (JKCHR)Date: [27 May 2025] Executive Summary This memorandum defends the continued existence and constitutional relevance of the 12 seats reserved in the Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK) Legislative Assembly for refugees from Jammu and Kashmir Valley, currently residing in various provinces of Pakistan. It also rebuts the flawed argument that such representation is anomalous or unjustified. These seats are legally, politically, and morally indispensable for ensuring inclusivity, preserving the international status of the Jammu and Kashmir dispute, and maintaining parity with constitutional practices in both Indian-administered Kashmir and other global democracies. 1. Legal and Historical Basis for Refugee Representation The 12 seats—6 for refugees from the Kashmir Valley and 6 for refugees from Jammu—reflect a humanitarian and political necessity stemming from the mass displacement of residents due to the India-Pakistan conflict over Jammu and Kashmir. These individuals were forced from their homeland and settled in Punjab, Sindh, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, and Balochistan. To deprive them of legislative representation would amount to disenfranchisement and a denial of political agency under the principles enshrined in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), particularly Article 25. 2. International and Comparative Practice It is erroneously argued by some quarters that legislative representation for displaced or diaspora communities has no parallel elsewhere in the world. In fact, more than 20 countries provide for formal representation of their diaspora or displaced populations in their national legislatures. Examples include: Such provisions recognize the importance of political participation and continuity of identity, even when citizens are located outside their homeland. The AJK refugee seats fall well within this established international practice. 3. Parity with Indian Administered Jammu and Kashmir The Indian Constitution reserves 24 seats in the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly for areas currently administered by Pakistan, namely Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan. These seats remain vacant but reinforce the notion of an incomplete and contested territorial status. In mirror response, the 12 refugee seats in AJK represent the population from Indian-administered areas who are forcibly displaced and now reside in Pakistan. Unlike the vacant Indian seats—which represent settled people living under a different administration—the 12 AJK seats represent a disenfranchised and uprooted community, rendering their need for political voice far more urgent. 4. Addressing Allegations of Corruption and Political Manipulation Allegations of corruption and political opportunism apply to the broader Assembly and not exclusively to the refugee members. The entire 53-member Assembly has witnessed party switching and undue interference. Targeting only the 12 refugee seats is selective and unfair. The remedy lies in institutional reform and electoral integrity, not disenfranchisement. Mechanisms such as independent electoral commissions, anti-defection laws, and enhanced community nomination procedures can and should be introduced to strengthen democratic accountability. 5. Constitutional and Strategic Significance Retaining the refugee seats is central to: 6. Recommendations Conclusion The 12 refugee seats are not a vestige of past arrangements but a forward-looking commitment to political justice, humanitarian inclusion, and constitutional parity. Their abolition would weaken the moral and legal position of AJK and Pakistan on the Kashmir dispute and disenfranchise a vulnerable population whose right to representation is both internationally supported and constitutionally enshrined. Prepared by:Dr. Syed Nazir GilaniPresident, Jammu and Kashmir Council for Human Rights (JKCHR)(In Special Consultative Status with the United Nations) For Submission to: For Clarifications and Enquiries:Please contact JKCHR at admin@jkchr.org
Dual Responsibility of Kashmiri Civil Servants/Employees
Duty to Kashmiri people’s right of self-determination under the UN framework A formal guidance note / internal memorandum template for Kashmiri civil servants employed in the Government of Azad Jammu and Kashmir or the Government of Pakistan. It is structured to offer principled and lawful navigation of the dual responsibility to state employment and the Kashmiri people’s right of self-determination under the UN framework. Internal Memorandum / Guidance Note Subject: Navigating Professional Obligations and the Duty to Uphold the Right of Self-Determination of the People of Jammu and Kashmir To: All Kashmiri Officers and Civil ServantsFrom: [JKCHR Legal Department]Date: 25 May 2025Reference: UN Charter, UNCIP Resolutions, AJK Interim Constitution 1974, International Human Rights Obligations Purpose of this Guidance Note This memorandum aims to provide guidance to Kashmiri civil servants employed in the Government of Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK) or under the administrative framework of the Government of Pakistan on how to lawfully and ethically navigate situations where official instructions or administrative practices appear to conflict with their moral and constitutional responsibility to uphold the right of self-determination of the people of Jammu and Kashmir as recognized by the United Nations. Context and Legal Background Guiding Principles for Civil Servants 1. Lawful Compliance with Conscience 2. Protected Speech and Conduct 3. Avoiding Complicity in Oppression 4. Professionalism within Constitutional Boundaries Procedural Safeguards Civil servants facing difficult situations are advised to: Conclusion Kashmiri civil servants are stewards of an unfinished international process. In serving their administrative roles, they must remain conscious of their fiduciary responsibility to the people of Jammu and Kashmir and to the international legal framework governing the region. This guidance is intended to offer support in balancing institutional responsibility with principled service to a people and cause that remain subjects of international concern and protection. For further clarification or legal consultation, please contact:[JKCHR Legal Division] – admin@jkchr.org Dr. Syed Nazir Gilani President, Jammu and Kashmir Council for Human Rights (JKCHR) In Special Consultative Status with the United Nations. Dr-nazirgilani@jkchr.com 25 May 2025