For nearly half a century, I have lived in Pakistan-administered Jammu and Kashmir (PaJK). During this period, I practiced law, participated in politics, served as Advocate General, remained associated with the higher judiciary for almost twenty-five years, and later served as Vice Chancellor of the University of Azad Jammu and Kashmir and as Chief Election Commissioner. These experiences have allowed me to observe the political evolution of the region from close quarters.
PaJK has given dignity, opportunities, and recognition to many displaced people, including myself. Those of us who have benefited from this society owe a responsibility to its future generations. That responsibility requires an honest discussion about one of the most consequential issues affecting governance in the territory: the continued existence of refugee seats in the Legislative Assembly.
Over the decades, many migrants from Jammu and Kashmir chose to settle permanently in other parts of Pakistan. They built successful lives, raised families, and became integrated into the social and economic fabric of their adopted communities. Yet, despite countless conversations with politicians, civil servants, and public figures across PaJK, I have rarely encountered an informed observer who does not believe that the refugee seats reserved for Jammu and Kashmir migrants have become a mechanism through which Islamabad exercises decisive influence over political outcomes in the territory.
The justification for this arrangement is often presented as a matter of historical necessity. However, when one probes further, the real explanation usually emerges. Governments in PaJK are frequently formed and sustained through these seats. Without them, political equations change significantly.
The issue has now become the subject of growing public debate. Political parties themselves remain divided. The Pakistan Peoples Party generally opposes the existing arrangement because it has historically failed to secure representation through the refugee constituencies in Punjab. The Pakistan Muslim League (N), on the other hand, has often benefited from these seats and therefore supports their continuation. Had electoral fortunes been reversed, it is quite possible that the positions of the two parties would also have been reversed.
A revealing comment attributed to senior PML-N leader Rana Sanaullah suggested that the party's majority in PaJK should effectively begin with eleven seats. Whether intended literally or politically, the remark reinforced a perception already widespread among the public: that refugee seats have become central to government formation rather than to refugee representation.
Democratic Governance
This distinction is important. The debate is not about the Kashmir issue, as it is projected. It is about democratic governance. Linking refugee seats to the larger Kashmir issue often obscures the real question: should the political future of more than four million residents of PaJK be substantially influenced by voters who reside outside the territory?
The people who secured and defended this region made immense sacrifices. Historical accounts, including the writings of General Akbar Khan, one of the principal figures associated with the events of 1947, acknowledge the role played by local populations in shaping the territory's political destiny. Their voice cannot be treated as secondary.
At the same time, Pakistan's contributions cannot be ignored. It provided citizenship, rehabilitation, and opportunities to displaced families. It has protected the region's borders and remains its principal security guarantor. PaJK also serves as a strategic frontline area for Pakistan.
Yet constitutional realities remain equally important. PaJK is not formally incorporated into Pakistan, and its residents do not enjoy all the rights available to Pakistani citizens. In certain official contexts, the territory has even been described as separate from Pakistan's constitutional framework. These realities naturally raise questions about political representation and democratic accountability.
The principle should be straightforward: people ought to exercise political and administrative rights where they actually live. Democratic legitimacy flows from residency, participation, and accountability. When elected representatives depend on voters who live elsewhere, the connection between government and governed becomes weaker.
The consequences extend beyond politics. The current arrangement influences opportunities available to local youth in government employment, federal quotas, and admissions to professional institutions. Many residents view this as an issue not only of representation but also of fairness.
Alternative models exist. In Indian-administered Jammu and Kashmir, displaced Kashmiri Pandits retain political representation while remaining linked to their original constituencies. Whatever one may think of that system, it attempts to preserve representation without creating a separate bloc capable of decisively influencing government formation.
The broader principle was articulated decades ago by Josef Korbel, former chairman of the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan, who observed in the context of Kashmir that:
"These territories shall have complete political and administrative control under the surveillance of the UN Security Council."
Regardless of contemporary political interpretations, the underlying principle remains relevant: the people of a territory must have meaningful control over their own political and administrative affairs.
The growing public concern over refugee seats should therefore not be dismissed. Nor should it be reduced to partisan politics. It is fundamentally a question of democratic representation and institutional credibility.
PaJK also requires stronger governance, greater accountability, and more effective public institutions. Systems that allow outside influence to determine legislative majorities often weaken democratic structures, encourage dependency, and undermine public confidence. The practice of engineering governments through preferred legislators and ministers may offer short-term political advantages, but it comes at a long-term cost.
A representative, accountable, and genuinely autonomous political system remains the best guarantee of stability, public trust, and effective governance. The people of Pakistan-administered Jammu and Kashmir deserve institutions that reflect their collective will and respond directly to their aspirations.
Have you liked the news article?