Constitutional Ambiguity or Political Instrumentalization over Refugee Seats?

Dr. Faizur Rehman

In the lead-up to the Legislative Assembly elections of Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK), scheduled for 7 July 2026, the 12 seats reserved for refugees of Jammu and Kashmir have emerged as the focal point of a complex constitutional and political dispute. This issue has generated significant tension between the Government of AJK and the currently banned Joint Awami Action Committee (JAAC), reflecting deeper structural questions regarding representation, legitimacy, and governance. These reserved seats are allocated to individuals classified as refugees who reside outside the territorial jurisdiction of AJK, primarily within Pakistan. The JAAC contends that those who migrated during the upheavals of 1947, along with their subsequent generations, have since become an integral component of Pakistani state and society.

Consequently, their continued political representation within AJK is perceived as an anomaly that produces a disproportionate influence over local resources, development allocations, and institutional stability. This critique extends beyond distributive concerns to encompass broader questions of political equilibrium and administrative coherence. A significant dimension of this issue lies in the geographical distribution of these constituencies. Of the twelve refugee seats, ten are situated in Punjab, thereby rendering them susceptible to influence from provincial political actors. This structural feature has historically facilitated external intervention in AJK’s electoral processes. Public statements by prominent political figures, suggesting a predetermined advantage in forming government through these seats, further reinforce perceptions of political Instrumentalization. Empirical disparities in voter representation also underpin the critique advanced by the JAAC. While over 3.3 million voters participate in electing representatives for 33 general seats within AJK, the 12 refugee seats are decided by markedly smaller electorates—approximately 404,948 voters for Jammu-origin seats and only 33,598 for those representing the Kashmir Valley. Such disproportionality raises substantive concerns regarding the violation of democratic norms of equitable representation and electoral parity.

From a constitutional perspective, interpretations of Article 2 of the AJK Interim Constitution, as articulated by former Acting Chief Justice (R) Manzoor Hussain Gilani, restrict the definition of “Azad Kashmir” to territories under the administrative control of its government. This interpretation implies that constitutional rights and political representation should be confined to residents within these boundaries. Within this framework, the existence of refugee seats appears incongruous with the foundational constitutional structure. However, the absence of comparable objections to reserved category “Overseas Kashmiri Seat”, suggests the presence of selective critique and normative inconsistency.

The JAAC’s recent mobilization, particularly its success in advocating for the implementation of constitutional provisions relating to hydropower revenue and royalties, has enhanced its public legitimacy. This achievement not only provided tangible economic relief but also exposed perceived deficiencies in governmental responsiveness and accountability. Nevertheless, there is a growing perception that the movement has been strategically redirected toward a more complex and potentially intractable political dispute, thereby transforming it into a zero-sum-contest in which compromise becomes increasingly elusive. The political implications of this contestation are multifaceted. While it may be strategically rational for opposition parties, such as the Pakistan Peoples Party (AJK), to support reforms that diminish the influence of refugee seats, however, the potential involvement of institutional actors raises more concerns as one of the JAAC’s senior members repeated claims of having received “guarantees,” without clarifying the source. Any attempt to restructure or abolish these seats risks exacerbating intra-Kashmiri divisions, particularly given the symbolic and political significance attached to refugee representation. Voices from the diaspora further illuminate the normative stakes of this issue. Bradford based Kashmiri political activist Shaukat Maqbool Butt, observes that the demand to abolish these seats has already created a visible societal divide. He reflects on his four-decade-long struggle for an independent and sovereign Jammu and Kashmir State, rooted in the vision of his late father, Maqbool Butt.

He questions the purpose of such sacrifices if he is denied representation in the AJK Assembly. Conversely, the Government of AJK defends the stance of refugee representation on historical and legal grounds. It maintains that post-1947 migrants were recognized as citizens of the erstwhile state of Jammu and Kashmir through legislative measures enacted in 1951. Institutional precedents dating back to the formation of representative bodies in 1960 and subsequent constitutional developments have consistently incorporated refugee participation. The 13th Constitutional Amendment of 2018 reaffirmed this arrangement, embedding refugee seats within a broader framework of reserved representation. The situation has been further complicated by the government’s designation of the JAAC as a proscribed organization, effectively constraining avenues for dialogue. This decision has intensified public protests, including notable participation by women, and has raised questions regarding the standard for such classification. Competing narratives, particularly allegations of anti-state rhetoric—highlight the central role of discourse in shaping public perception and political legitimacy. At present, both the government and the JAAC appear to be entrenched in positions that limit the prospects for de-escalation. For the JAAC, withdrawal without substantive concessions would entail significant political and moral costs, particularly in light of casualties incurred during protests. For the government, acquiescence risks undermining established political hierarchies and introducing new uncertainties into the governance framework.

The broader socio-political context provides important insights into the emergence of this contestation. The expansion of education, increased global exposure, and the proliferation of social media have contributed to the rise of a politically conscious and assertive youth demographic. This cohort increasingly demands transparency, accountability, and substantive representation, challenging traditional modes of political authority. Given that a significant proportion of Pakistan’s population is under the age of 30, and considering the relatively high literacy rates yet limited employment opportunities in AJK, socio-economic grievances have intensified. These conditions create a fertile ground for political mobilization and institutional critique. In light of these dynamics, a negotiated resolution appears imperative. A Presidential Ordinance is the potential pathway involves the reduction of refugee seats, coupled with their election through proportional representation within the AJK Assembly. Such an approach could reconcile the requisite for inclusivity with the principles of equitable representation and institutional stability. Equally, the JAAC must exhibit strategic flexibility, recognizing that sustained political relevance depends upon adaptability and engagement within evolving structural constraints. Ultimately, the present crisis reflects a transitional phase within AJK’s political development. Whether this moment yields constructive institutional reform or deeper fragmentation will depend upon the capacity of stakeholders to engage in principled negotiation and to reconcile competing claims within a coherent constitutional framework.