Thread by @JanAli2022

Exploiting Refugee Seats to Falsely Claim Statewide Representation
The 12 seats in the Pakistan-administered Kashmir Assembly, reserved for Kashmiri refugees living in Pakistan, were not established at the behest of the people of Indian-administered Kashmir or Gilgit-Baltistan.

These seats were created by politicians in Muzaffarabad solely to serve their own political interests — not to represent or protect the rights of refugees, nor to reflect the will of the people of Indian-administered Kashmir or Gilgit-Baltistan.

This is clearly evident from the negligible expenditure on the refugee population over decades, despite the large grants and financial aid received from the Government of Pakistan in the name of the “Azad Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir.”

Ironically, these 12 members have become mere facilitators of exploitative regimes. These seats gave such regimes the opportunity to falsely claim that the governments in Muzaffarabad represent the entire State of Jammu and Kashmir.

This clause reveals a deep distortion in the structure of political representation. The creation of these refugee-reserved seats was not driven by democratic consultation or public demand, but was a carefully orchestrated political tactic.

Contrary to the assumption that these seats influence lawmaking or government formation —or the false impression that they are funded by the taxpayers of Pakistan-administered Kashmir (whose revenues are not even sufficient to pay salaries, pensions, and allowances) —they do not.

In reality, these refugee members effectively surrendered their share from the grants that the so-called “Azad Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir” received from Pakistan.

They received no more than Rs 5 billion out of the Rs 400 billion that successive governments in Muzaffarabad have received from the Government of Pakistan since 1990.

That amount — or slightly more — may have been spent on their salaries, allowances, or the land purchased for refugees settled in Pakistan. These funds came from variable grants received by the Azad Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir from Pakistan.

The total funds received for refugees may have amounted to just over 1% of the total grants the Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir received from Pakistan.

The role of refugee members has been entirely symbolic: to falsely imply that the government in Muzaffarabad represents the entire State of Jammu & Kashmir.

This misrepresentation has enabled successive governments to exploit the Kashmir issue on national and international platforms, without delivering any tangible benefit to the refugees themselves, or to the people of Indian-administered Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan.

The inclusion of these seats,therefore, violates both the legal principle of jurisdictional honesty & the moral duty of truthful representation, unctioning instead as a political façade designed to obscure the narrow administrative reach of the Pakistan-administered Kashmir govt.

Whether these seats remain or not is not a concern for the people of Indian-administered Kashmir or Gilgit-Baltistan. Their real issue lies elsewhere — with four controversial clauses in the constitution of Pakistan-administered Kashmir.

These are clauses that the people of Indian-administered Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan never approved, were never consulted on, and outright reject. These clauses must be abolished immediately.

Moreover, the title of the government of Pakistan-administered Kashmir — the so-called “Azad Government of the State of Jammu & Kashmir” — must be renamed, because it gives a false and deceptive impression that this government represents the entire state of Jammu & Kashmir

, which it absolutely does not.
No legitimate government can extend its claim over a population or territory that never participated in its formation, never ratified its constitutional structure, and never granted it political agency.

The so-called “Azad Government of the State of Jammu & Kashmir” is legally and morally misrepresenting its jurisdiction. Under international law, self-determination and political legitimacy require genuine consent — not historical rhetoric or symbolic gestures.

The continued use of this title fuels geopolitical confusion and misleads the international community.

A Government of 6% Cannot Represent 100%
The official name of the Pakistan-administered Kashmir government — “Azad Government of the State of Jammu & Kashmir” — is a gross misrepresentation of reality.

A government that exercises control over only 6% of Jammu & Kashmir’s total territory cannot claim to represent the whole state.

It has no jurisdiction over Gilgit-Baltistan or Indian-administered Kashmir, and the people of these regions have never given any legal, political, or moral power of attorney to this government. Therefore, this name must be changed.
I

Indian-administered Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan never gave this government any mandate to claim representation over them.

The Pakistan-administered Kashmir government exercises authority over only a small fraction of the historic territory, yet lays claim to represent the entire state. This is not only factually inaccurate but also legally indefensible.

Moreover, the people of Gilgit-Baltistan and Indian-administered Kashmir function under distinct political and legal frameworks.

Any constitutional claim made by Pakistan-administered Kashmir’s government over them is a unilateral assertion,made without legal,democratic, or moral legitimacy.The government’s name & title must reflect actual governance,not aspirational claims — & certainly not forced claims.

In truth, this is not even aspirational, because neither Gilgit-Baltistan nor Indian-administered Kashmir recognize this government as theirs.

It is a government that imposes itself upon them, only to exploit their suffering and protect its own political interests, without accountability or representation.
Illegitimate Constitutional Clauses on Representation

The interim constitution of Pakistan-administered Kashmir claims that this government represents the entire state of Jammu & Kashmir. This is factually and legally incorrect. Its jurisdiction does not extend to Gilgit-Baltistan or Indian-administered Kashmir,

and those regions have never given it any mandate or consent. In fact, Gilgit-Baltistan and Indian-administered Kashmir each have their own governments and administrative systems.

Hence, the clause stating that “The government of Azad Kashmir is the government of the entire state of Jammu & Kashmir” is false, illegitimate, and must be removed from the constitution.

No constitution can rightfully impose jurisdiction over external populations who neither elect its representatives nor recognize its authority.

Pakistan-administered Kashmir’s constitutional claim to represent all of J&K is an overreach without any international or regional legal grounding. This clause is a violation of democratic principles and must be annulled.

The Empty Promise of the Right to Self-Determination
Another constitutional clause in Pakistan-administered Kashmir states that this government shall struggle under the UN Charter to advocate for the right of self-determination for the people of the State of Jammu & Kashmir.

But this has never happened. Instead, since the formation of this government, the following have occurred: a genocide in Jammu, India’s occupation of two-thirds of Kashmir, the killing of over 70,000 Kashmiris since 1988, & the annexation of Kashmir at gunpoint on August 5, 2019.

And what did the regional government and political parties in Pakistan-administered Kashmir do? They remained silent. The political elite looked the other way and chose not to act.

There has also been no campaign, no resistance, no mobilization for the right to self-determination in Pakistan-administered Kashmir. For decades, no government has even initiated a meaningful movement toward that goal.

Therefore, the clause about advocating the right to self-determination is nothing more than a hollow slogan, and must be removed from the constitution.
This clause operates as a political placebo — a symbolic reference to pacify public opinion without triggering actual action.

Its continued inclusion without execution renders the constitution disingenuous. A provision without institutional backing, policy planning, or public mobilization is a dead letter in legal terms. It should be struck from the document to preserve constitutional integrity.

The Plebiscite Advisor: A Tool of Hypocrisy
The constitution also includes a clause regarding the appointment of an “Advisor for Plebiscite.” But in 77 years, no such advisor has ever been appointed.

In the 1990s, the Pakistan-administered Kashmir government told the High Court that they lacked the funds to appoint such an advisor — and that India was not ready for a plebiscite anyway.

Court documents, however, reveal a very different picture: while the government claimed it didn’t have money for a plebiscite advisor, it had plenty of funds to appoint ministers, advisors, and special assistants. The hypocrisy is blatant.

Legally, if a constitutional mandate is systematically ignored, it brings the entire document into question. The advisor’s role, limited to preparation rather than execution of a plebiscite, never required Indian consent.

The failure to appoint such a role for decades, despite clear constitutional language, represents a willful obstruction of mandate, not a financial or diplomatic hurdle. This is a form of dereliction of constitutional duty.

This government was fully exposed when it claimed that India’s unwillingness was the reason not to appoint an advisor. If India’s approval is required to appoint such an advisor, then what is the real purpose of this clause? Why are people in Jammu & Kashmir being killed?

Is this clause simply a political tool used to justify an unnecessary and bloated administrative system, built to benefit a privileged political elite in Pakistan-administered Kashmir, while exploiting the people of Indian-administered Kashmir and doing nothing for them?

The truth is, the role of the advisor was not to conduct the plebiscite but to prepare for it — something that could have and should have been done without India’s approval.

That this position was never filled clearly shows that Pakistan-administered Kashmir’s governments have deliberately obstructed even preparatory steps toward self-determination.

This represents the clearest case of constitutional betrayal. Preparation for plebiscite does not legally require consent from the opposing party. The continued failure to initiate even internal preparations highlights deliberate political inertia.

This clause has also been misused to uphold a bloated bureaucracy while delivering nothing meaningful to the Kashmiri cause.

This was made even more clear in August 2024, when the Prime Minister of Azad Kashmir openly stated:
“There is currently no strong indigenous movement in Indian-administered Kashmir.”

He further said that only when that movement gains strength and India surrenders, then they would consider appointing an advisor for the plebiscite.
This statement is a disgrace.

Sitting in a Mercedes, the Prime Minister essentially declared that the 300,000 corpses from Jammu to the Kashmir Valley were not enough to satisfy the political elite in Pakistan-administered Kashmir.

He essentially implied that women and children in the Kashmir Valley must first rise up and defeat a million soldiers from a country of 1.5 billion people, and only then would they consider taking action.

The implication is chilling: they do not actually want to take any action. Instead, they seem content for the people of Indian-administered Kashmir to continue dying slowly — to be systematically wiped out, just like in Jammu, where Muslims were annihilated.

After all, the Valley makes up only 0.5% of India’s population — a tiny and vulnerable demographic. The political elite of Pakistan-administered Kashmir are so consumed by their own power and privilege, they are indifferent to whether the Valley suffers the same fate.

Their statements and silence speak volumes. The political elite in Pakistan-administered Kashmir have made it abundantly clear: they do not care what happens to the people of Indian-administered Kashmir.

Given this shameful reality, the clause about appointing a plebiscite advisor must be removed from the constitution.
This is a damning indictment of political hypocrisy. The Prime Minister’s statement betrays the blood and suffering of hundreds of thousands.

Leadership that conditions its constitutional obligations on “Indian surrender” is not merely passive; it is complicit in the continued suffering of Kashmiris. This clause must be removed as a matter of both legal accountability and moral decency.

Kashmir Council’s Role on UNCIP Resolutions
In 2018, when the Pakistan-administered Kashmir Assembly passed the 13th Amendment, it gave the Kashmir Council the authority to advise the Government of Pakistan on UNCIP resolutions on Kashmir. S

even years have passed. Four billion rupees have been spent. And yet — not a single piece of advice has been provided. Worse still, the mandate was also given to the Pakistan-administered Kashmir Assembly to pass such laws independently, but no action was taken.

This clause, too, is a dead letter and should be deleted from the constitution.
A clause without results after seven years — despite allocated funding — confirms complete institutional failure. No advice. No laws. No oversight.

This provision has been weaponized to justify bureaucratic expansion without delivering on its intended legal purpose. It must be repealed.

@CMShehbaz @GovtofPakistan @PakPMO @KhawajaMAsif @sherryrehman @BBhuttoZardari @Mushahid @KhSaad_Rafique @shiblifaraz @AonAbbasPTI

please unroll @UnrollHelper