Political Privilege Or Democratic Paradox: Rethinking Refugee Representation In AJK – Analysis

1. Introduction

This article examines the continued existence of the 12 refugee seats in the Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK) Legislative Assembly and challenges the widely propagated but unfounded claim that these seats are “legally, politically, and morally indispensable.” Such assertions often rely more on emotive rhetoric than on grounded legal reasoning or democratic theory.

It is essential to distinguish between legality, political necessity, and moral obligation—each of which constitutes a distinct normative category. Conflating these domains undermines analytical clarity and hinders meaningful institutional reform. The continued exitance and legitimacy of these seats must be evaluated against concrete criteria such as democratic norms, representational equity, and coherence within AJK’s constitutional and administrative framework.

This article contends that Pakistan’s obligations under the United Nations Resolutions pertain primarily to administrative accountability, good governance, and the creation of conditions conducive to a future plebiscite. These obligations do not explicitly mandate the preservation of refugee representation within the AJK Legislative Assembly. Moreover, given the limited constitutional jurisdiction of the AJK government and its lack of internationally recognized legal personality, the continuation of these seats cannot be justified through legal or moral arguments rooted in the UNCIP framework. Therefore, invoking the international character of the Kashmir conflict to justify these seats doesn’t provide any substantive—legal or diplomatic value. Without rigorous scrutiny, retaining this structure risks entrenching outdated mechanisms that no longer reflect the political realities and democratic aspirations of AJK’s population.

More fundamentally, the legal identity, sanctity, and continuity of the State of Jammu and Kashmir do not rest on the maintenance of these 12 refugee seats. Instead, they derive from the State Subject Rule of 1927 and the recognition of state subject status. It is the valid issuance and preservation of State Subject Certificates—not legislative quotas—that affirm individuals’ political rights, property entitlements, and national identity within the disputed state.

The analysis that follows argues that the current configuration of refugee representation constitutes a constitutional and administrative anomaly that is misaligned with contemporary principles of democratic governance, legal accountability, and equitable representation. Accordingly, constitutional reform aimed at rationalizing or restructuring this form of representation is not only warranted but long overdue.

 2. UNSC Resolutions: Misinterpreted Legal Grounds for Refugee Seats

The assertion that United Nations Security Council (UNSC) Resolutions 47 and 91 provide international legal justification for the 12 refugee seats in the Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK) Legislative Assembly reflects a selective and legally flawed interpretation. It is intellectually untenable to suggest that these resolutions impose any obligation on Pakistan or the AJK government to establish or maintain refugee-specific legislative representation.

UNSC Resolutions 47 (1948) and 91 (1951) are foundational texts concerning the Kashmir dispute. Adopted under Chapter VI of the UN Charter, they aim to facilitate a peaceful resolution through ceasefire, demilitarization, and ultimately a free and impartial plebiscite to determine the will of the people of Jammu and Kashmir. Crucially, these resolutions do not prescribe or endorse any internal political arrangements within AJK, nor do they mandate reserved refugee representation in any legislative body.

Therefore, invoking these resolutions to justify the continued existence of the 12 refugee seats lacks a clear legal basis and misrepresents the scope and intent of the UNSC’s guidance. This line of argumentation is not only legally tenuous but may also be strategically counterproductive. If perceived internationally as a mechanism for internal political manipulation lacking democratic legitimacy, the refugee seat arrangement could weaken rather than strengthen Pakistan’s legal and diplomatic standing on the Kashmir issue.

Moreover, equating the legitimacy of the 12 refugee seats with the continuity of the State of Jammu and Kashmir obscures the more foundational legal instruments that underpin its identity. The enduring legal basis for the state’s continuity lies not in legislative quotas but in the State Subject Rule of 1927 and the preservation of State Subject Certificates. These frameworks safeguard political rights, land ownership, and national identity for the people of Jammu and Kashmir, including those displaced by conflict.

In conclusion, the presence or absence of the refugee seats in the AJK Legislative Assembly has no bearing on Pakistan’s legal position at the United Nations. Rather than reinforcing Pakistan’s commitment to democratic norms and the principle of self-determination, maintaining these seats without electoral reform risks reinforcing perceptions of undemocratic practice. 

3. Democratic Legitimacy and Jurisdictional Disparity

The current refugee seat arrangement in the Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK) Legislative Assembly permits the election of 12 members from constituencies located outside AJK’s territorial jurisdiction. These individuals neither reside within AJK’s legal boundaries, nor are they subject to its laws, contribute to its tax base, or participate in its local governance systems. This model contravenes fundamental democratic principles, including territorial representation, subsidiarity, and fiscal accountability.

Equating this arrangement with diaspora representation in sovereign states is both inaccurate and legally problematic. It is important to distinguish between two fundamentally different concepts:

• Diaspora voting and reserved legislative seats are not equivalent. While many countries permit their citizens abroad to vote, few—if any—reserve parliamentary seats for them.
• States such as France, Portugal, Romania, Algeria, Tunisia, Croatia, and Italy do allocate legislative seats for their overseas citizens. However, these cases involve representation of citizens of a sovereign state, not displaced persons from a disputed territory.

In contrast, AJK is not a sovereign state under international law; it remains a disputed territory administered by Pakistan pursuant to its responsibilities under relevant United Nations Security Council (UNSC) resolutions. Consequently, applying diaspora representation models used by sovereign nations to AJK’s unique constitutional and political context is legally incongruent and structurally inappropriate.

Therefore, the continued political representation of non-resident refugees in the AJK Legislative Assembly raises serious questions of democratic legitimacy, jurisdictional coherence, and legal consistency. A re-evaluation of this arrangement, grounded in both constitutional principles and international legal standards, is warranted.

4. Structural Incoherence in the 1974 Interim Constitution

While the AJK Interim Constitution Act, 1974, provides for these seats (Articles 22), its 13th Amendment has entrenched the refugee seats without any mechanism for review, proportional adjustment, or electoral jurisdictional reform and accountability. Further that,

It is important to recognize that constitutional legitimacy does not equate to permanent rationality. As refugee demographics, political dynamics, and public sentiment evolve, constitutional provisions must be responsive to such changes to maintain their relevance and legitimacy.

Moreover, the persistent flaws and manipulation in the electoral process for these seats undermine the principle of internal self-determination. This principle is foundational to Pakistan’s international commitments under the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) process of the UN Human Rights Council and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), both of which emphasize participatory governance and the political empowerment of local populations.

5. The Parity Argument: False Equivalence with Indian-Administered J&K

The argument that the 12 refugee seats in the Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK) Legislative Assembly are a “mirror response” to India’s 24 vacant seats reserved for Pakistan-administered areas is politically convenient but legally flawed and structurally inconsistent.  It rests on a superficial analogy that collapses distinct legal, political, and functional realities.

India’s 24 seats—formerly outlined in Article 48 of the now-abrogated Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir—were entirely symbolic. These seats were never contested, never occupied, and held no legislative authority or budgetary role. Their sole purpose was to reinforce India’s territorial claims over AJK and Gilgit-Baltistan. They offered no platform for democratic participation, nor were they intended to represent displaced persons in any functional sense.

In contrast, the 12 refugee seats in AJK are not symbolic placeholders. They carry full legislative powers, access to public funds, and determine the political composition of the AJK Assembly. Elections for these seats are held in Pakistan’s provinces—outside AJK’s territorial jurisdiction and beyond the legal authority of the AJK Election Commission. This extraterritorial arrangement raises serious concerns about transparency, electoral accountability, and democratic legitimacy. The current model fails on all these counts. It cannot be defended simply by pointing to a defunct, non-functional, and symbolic precedent in Indian-administered Jammu and Kashmir.

6. Disproportional Representation and Electoral Integrity

Electoral exercises for the 12 refugee seats are conducted outside the administrative jurisdiction of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK) Election Commission, thereby compromising electoral integrity and transparency. This structural disconnect presents significant legal and procedural inconsistencies. Specifically:

• The AJK Election Commission has no jurisdiction in the provinces of Punjab, Sindh, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP), or Baluchistan. This results in a dual electoral system that is vulnerable to manipulation, vote-buying, and proxy candidacies, without adequate institutional oversight or accountability.
• Refugees from Jammu and Kashmir who have settled in Pakistan have been granted citizenship under the Pakistan Citizenship Act. Their legal and political affiliation has increasingly become integrated into Pakistan’s national framework rather than that of Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK).
• Many refugees from Jammu and Kashmir who have settled in Pakistan retain their status as State Subjects under the 1932 State Subject Notification, which states: “All emigrants from the Jammu and Kashmir State to foreign territories shall be considered State Subjects, as well as the descendants of these emigrants born abroad for two generations.” 
• In practice, however, this status is often extended beyond the second generation. This persistence is primarily due to the unresolved political status of the former princely state of Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) and the exceptional circumstances surrounding its displacement and conflict. The extension of State Subject status beyond two generations is thus seen as an exceptional measure—one that will remain in place until a plebiscite is held, or a final political resolution is reached.
• State Subject status may serve to preserve a political and historical connection to former princely state of Jammu and Kashmir (J&K); it does notconfer internal rights within Azad Jammu and Kashmir. This includes residency privileges, use of public funds, and internal governance matters, which remain the domain of permanent residents of AJK.

7. Socioeconomic Injustice to AJK Youth

The current allocation of public sector opportunities in Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK) reveals a deeply entrenched socioeconomic imbalance, particularly disadvantaging the region’s youth. A substantial 25% job quota is reserved for individuals who are not permanent residents of AJK—comprising 19% for refugees from Jammu and Kashmir settled in Pakistan and 6% for internally displaced persons (IDPs) within AJK. While the intent may have been to support vulnerable populations, in practice, this quota disproportionately limits access to employment and public service opportunities for local AJK youth, who are already burdened by high unemployment rates and systemic underdevelopment.

Moreover, refugees settled in Pakistan enjoy full access to federal and provincial employment, education, and welfare systems under Pakistani law. The continuation of dual privileges—allowing the same individuals to benefit from both Pakistani and AJK-based systems—not only contradicts the principle of equitable resource distribution but also creates institutional bias in favor of a non-resident population. This undermines meritocracy and exacerbates socioeconomic disparities in AJK.

To ensure fairness and regional justice, this dual entitlement must be urgently reconsidered. Employment quotas should be restructured to prioritize local youth from AJK, who lack parallel access to the broader opportunities available in Pakistan. The goal should be to empower AJK residents with a focus on IDPs by enhancing their access to education, employment, and governance, rather than perpetuating a system that sidelines them in their own region.

8. A Constitutional Anomaly in Urgent Need of Reform

The current structure of the 12 reserved refugee seats in the AJK Legislative Assembly presents significant challenges. Initially instituted with symbolic and humanitarian intent through an ordinance, these seats have evolved into a constitutional anomaly, a democratic inconsistency, and a source of socioeconomic disparity for residents within AJK.  From both legal and political standpoints, their continued existence is becoming increasingly difficult to justify. Legally, AJK’s Interim Constitution offers only limited administrative and territorial jurisdiction. Politically, any coherent justification for such representation would require Pakistan to formally recognize the AJK government as the legitimate representative authority for the entire former princely state of Jammu and Kashmir. However, Pakistan has not adopted this position. In the absence of such recognition, the rationale for maintaining refugee seats across provincial boundaries lacks credibility and continues to represent a constitutional anomaly and a democratic inconsistency. 

Refugees from Jammu and Kashmir who have permanently settled in Pakistan represent a significant cultural and strategic asset—particularly when their historical, political, and social potential is thoughtfully acknowledged and engaged. They continue to embody an essential dimension of the collective identity and heritage of the former princely state of Jammu and Kashmir. Their dual identity reflects both a persistent emotional and ancestral connection to their place of origin and a legitimate interest in the broader political future of the region. However, they do not possess rights or privileges within Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK), as the jurisdiction of the AJK government is confined to the territory it administers. Moreover, AJK is not formally recognized—either constitutionally or internationally—as representing the entire territory or population of the erstwhile princely state of Jammu and Kashmir.

Moreover, over time, these seats have become susceptible to political manipulation. They often serve the interests of national-level political parties rather than those of the refugee constituencies they are intended to represent. This disconnect has fueled perceptions of political marginalization and has contributed to growing mistrust and disengagement among segments of the AJK population. Continued reliance on this outdated and unaccountable model weakens AJK’s institutional legitimacy and undermines its democratic evolution. 

In their current form, these seats are flawed in both logic and intent, compromised in practice, and increasingly appear exploitative. They undermine electoral fairness, disrupt jurisdictional coherence, and erode the integrity of democratic representation within Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK).

9. Reforming Refugee Representation: Legal Options and Democratic Pathways

The current system of directly electing refugee representatives through geographically scattered constituencies across various provinces of Pakistan should be discontinued. This arrangement results in a fundamental disconnect between electoral representation and administrative jurisdiction, thereby compromising the coherence and legitimacy of Azad Jammu and Kashmir’s (AJK) democratic governance framework. 

Given the persistent issues related to electoral fairness, demographic imbalance, and the lack of jurisdictional coherence, substantial reform of the refugee representation model is both necessary and long overdue.  In fact, reform is not just a legal necessity—it is a democratic imperative.

There are several viable pathways:

• Abolish the 12 refugee seats, limiting legislative representation to residents currently living within AJK.
• Symbolic Representation: Alternatively, retain the seats in a symbolic or frozen capacity with suspended voting rights, and redirect associated funds and privileges to support IDPs in AJK and enhance public services such as education and healthcare.
• Reduce the number of seats by up to 70%, aligning representation more accurately with current demographic and jurisdictional realities.
• Adopt a Proportional Representation (PR) model, allocating refugee seats based on the overall vote share of political parties, rather than through dispersed, direct constituency elections.
• Reallocate development funds and employment quotas to benefit AJK’s IDPs and marginalized populations, shifting the focus from political privilege to social equity.

It is that any future settlement of the Kashmir issue—whether under United Nations auspices or through bilateral frameworks—will inevitably require a reconfiguration of internal governance structures in both AJK and Gilgit-Baltistan (GB).

A forward-looking AJK polity must therefore reform its political institutions in line with the right to internal self-determination, and the principles of decentralization, democratic parity, and local empowerment. Meaningful reform of the refugee seat structure is not only a legal and political necessity—it is a democratic imperative for ensuring the legitimacy, inclusivity, and future viability of governance in Azad Jammu and Kashmir.