New Delhi, Aug 8 (IANS) The acceptance of certain demands, while rejecting the principal call for balanced representation in Pakistan‑occupied Jammu and Kashmir (PoJK), appears driven more by necessity than goodwill, where mounting casualties, international scrutiny and the risk of delegitimised elections forced the rulers’ hand.
It comes amidst volatility marking the pretence of a three‑phase election to the 53‑member Legislative Assembly. By maintaining this structure and showcasing elections, Pakistan can claim democratic legitimacy in PoJK and international positioning. But the manipulation of constituencies exposes the hollowness of this claim.
According to reports, the government has accepted most demands put forward by the protesting Joint Awami Action Committee (JAAC). The region is witnessing its most serious unrest in years, with some 60 reported deaths, internet blackouts and staggered elections under heavy security. Yet, the major demand to abolish the 12 Legislative Assembly seats reserved for “refugees” residing elsewhere in Pakistan continues to hang fire.
With Pakistan already facing economic turmoil, prolonged unrest in PoJK risks spreading instability and undermining the legitimacy of the elections. The “reserved seats” are at the heart of the ongoing protests as these are seen as tools for Islamabad to manipulate the political balance by ensuring pro‑Pakistan parties maintain dominance.
Authorities fear that meeting the demand for dissolving these seats would embolden protestors’ voices and weaken Pakistan’s claim over the region internationally. Instead of initiating a discussion, the government has framed the protests as being infiltrated by “militants” and “influenced by India”, justifying its crackdown.
On June 7 this year, the PoJK “Supreme Court” ruled that these refugee seats are “constitutionally protected” and cannot be dissolved without a full constitutional amendment.
Meanwhile, major political parties, Pakistan Muslim League, Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP), Pakistan Tehreek‑e‑Insaf (PTI) and others, rejected the proposal. At the same time, the Kashmir Refugees Council called for doubling the reserved seats from 12 to 24.
The Legislative Assembly currently has 53 members. Out of these, 41 are directly elected from territorial constituencies within PoJK, while 12 seats are reserved. Such constituencies are spread across Pakistani cities like Lahore, Rawalpindi and Karachi. Their inclusion ensures Islamabad can influence the Assembly’s composition by mobilising votes outside the territory.
The Assembly also includes reserved seats for women and technocrats, but the refugee seats remain the most contentious. Even the seats reserved for women and technocrats are often filled through party nominations rather than direct elections, reinforcing patronage networks rather than empowering marginalised groups.
The protests in PoJK, led by the banned JAAC, intensified since June over rising prices, governance failures and the abolition of the reserved seats. The crisis highlights the fragility of Pakistan’s governance model in the region.
By conceding to economic and procedural demands, Islamabad has tacitly admitted the legitimacy of local grievances. Yet its refusal to address the refugee seat issue reveals a deeper unwillingness to relinquish political control.
This selective responsiveness exposes the contradiction at the heart of Pakistan’s Kashmir policy – claiming solidarity with Kashmiris while denying them real autonomy. Islamabad’s reliance on force, coupled with its narrative of external interference, risks alienating the very population it claims to champion.
Unless Pakistan adopts a more humane and inclusive approach, the unrest in PoJK may become a long‑term crisis, further eroding its credibility both internally and internationally.
–IANS
jb/dan
