For many years, the debate surrounding the non-territorial seats in the Pakistan-administered Jammu and Kashmir (PaJK) Legislative Assembly has generated more heat than light. The issue has become increasingly polarised, with some demanding the complete abolition of refugee seats while others insist that any change would undermine the rights of refugees and displaced State Subjects.
In reality, both positions overlook a fundamental truth: democratic reform and constitutional protection can coexist.
The question before us is not whether refugees and displaced State Subjects from the former State of Jammu and Kashmir deserve representation. They unquestionably do. The question is whether the current structure of that representation remains democratically justifiable in light of present-day electoral realities.
The evidence suggests that it does not.
According to the latest voter registration data from the Election Commission of PaJK (2026), the 33 territorial constituencies of PaJK represent approximately 3.37 million registered voters. Each territorial Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) therefore represents, on average, nearly 102,000 voters.
By contrast, the twelve non-territorial constituencies represent approximately 438,500 registered voters. However, the imbalance becomes particularly striking when one examines the composition of those twelve seats.
The six constituencies reserved for refugees originating from the Kashmir Valley contain only 33,598 registered voters. The remaining six constituencies, representing refugees from Jammu, Mangla Dam affectees and other State Subjects residing in Pakistan, contain 404,948 registered voters.
Yet both groups elect exactly six members each. The consequence is extraordinary. A Valley Refugee MLA represents approximately 5,600 voters. A Jammu Refugee or Mangla Dam affectee MLA represents approximately 67,500 voters. Meanwhile, a territorial MLA represents almost 102,000 voters.
A Valley Refugee voter and MLA have approximately 1,721% more voting power than a voter in an PaJK territorial constituency.
Similarly, a Valley Refugee voter and MLA have approximately 1,105% more voting power than a voter and MLA in the Jammu/Mangla/Others refugee category.
Few democratic systems anywhere in the world could defend such an arrangement.
This reality explains why calls for reform have intensified in recent years. Public frustration is not directed against refugee representation itself. Rather, it is directed against a system that has become increasingly disconnected from the democratic principle that each citizen’s vote should carry broadly equal value.
It is therefore important to clarify what reform should and should not mean.
Reform should not mean abolishing refugee representation. Refugees and displaced State Subjects remain an integral part of the unresolved Jammu and Kashmir question. Their constitutional recognition reflects historical realities and political rights that must be respected.
Reform should not mean weakening the State Subject status. Nor should it diminish the legitimate voice of communities displaced by conflict, partition or development projects such as the Mangla Dam.
Instead, reform should mean modernising representation so that constitutional protections are preserved while electoral fairness is restored.
A practical solution already exists.
By amending Article 22 of the PaJK Interim Constitution and applying the principle of proportional representation to current voter registration figures, the existing twelve non-territorial seats could be recalibrated to four constitutionally protected seats. This would preserve representation while ending the extreme over-representation that currently exists.
Such a reform would not create winners and losers. It would create a more balanced and credible democratic system.
Equally important, the eight seats released through reform need not disappear. They could be reinvested to broaden democratic inclusion by creating representation for young people, persons with disabilities, overseas Kashmiris and other underrepresented communities whose voices remain largely absent from formal political structures.
This would transform the current debate from one centred on subtraction into one focused on democratic expansion.
The choice facing political leaders today is therefore not between preserving rights and promoting fairness. It is between maintaining a system that has become increasingly difficult to defend and embracing a constitutional reform that strengthens democratic legitimacy while safeguarding established rights.
The Government of Pakistan, the Government of Pakistan-administered Jammu and Kashmir, the High-Powered Committee established under the Muzaffarabad Agreement, and all political parties now have an opportunity to demonstrate leadership.
They can choose to preserve an imbalance that undermines public confidence, or they can pursue a carefully designed constitutional settlement that protects refugee representation while restoring electoral equity.
History shows that strong democracies are not built by resisting reform. They are strengthened by adapting institutions to changing realities while remaining faithful to fundamental principles.
The principle at stake here is simple: every citizen matters, every vote matters, and every community deserves fair representation.
Protecting rights and restoring fairness are not competing objectives. In PaJK’s case, they are two sides of the same democratic imperative. The time for reform has arrived.
Have you liked the news article?