The Government of India’s introduction of the Delimitation of Constituencies Bill, 2026, has intensified political tensions in South Asia by proposing major changes to the electoral structure of Indian-administered Kashmir. While the bill itself is controversial, its most disputed element is its reference to Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK), a region outside India’s administrative control. The legislation authorizes the Election Commission of India to undertake constituency delimitation not only within its governed territory but also in AJK, prompting strong criticism from Kashmiris, human rights groups, and even segments of India’s political sphere. This move is widely seen by critics as unprecedented and provocative, given the longstanding territorial dispute and the region’s separate governance arrangement since 1949.
As the world watches, the people of Kashmir continue to assert their right to self-determination, and see not a legitimate legislative act, but an attempt to legitimize an occupation that has already lasted seven decades too long. The only certainty is that this bill, rather than bringing any resolution, has poured more fuel on a fire that threatens to consume the entire region
A key clause states that constituencies will be delineated in areas “under the occupation of Pakistan” once they come under Indian control, while a related law allocates 24 seats for these regions but keeps them permanently vacant until such a scenario arises. This creates a legal framework that symbolically incorporates AJK into India’s political system without actual control over the territory. Indian officials have defended the move as a reaffirmation of their constitutional claim and an effort to extend democratic rights, but opponents argue it amounts to a unilateral and symbolic assertion of sovereignty. For AJK residents, the proposal is largely viewed as an attempt at constitutional annexation rather than genuine political representation.
The bill’s timing cannot be separated from India’s broader political strategy for Kashmir, that began with the revocation of Article 370 in August 2019. That stripped IIOJK of its special autonomy and downgraded it to a Union Territory. Now, the Delimitation Bill is the logical, albeit absurd, next step in that process of erasure and absorption.
The history of these 24 seats is crucial to understanding the current controversy. When the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019, was passed, it reserved 24 seats in the new Union Territory’s legislative assembly for areas presently administered by Pakistan. However, the 2019 act effectively excluded these areas from the delimitation process conducted for the Indian-administered territories, which increased the UT’s seats from 83 to 90 .
The new bill reverses this exclusion. It empowers the Election Commission of India to act as the Delimitation Commission for these occupied territories once the situation changes, but crucially, it also lays down the legal architecture for their permanent “vacant reservation” in the meantime. This means that while the Jammu and Kashmir assembly will functionally have only its 90 elected members, its constitutionally defined maximum strength is now permanently fixed at 114 seats— including 24 ghost seats representing a people who have consistently rejected Indian sovereignty. As one analysis pointed out, this move ensures that the total strength of the assembly cannot drop below 114, including those reserved seats, effectively baking the claim into the constitutional math of the region forever .
The reaction to this announcement has been swift, furious, and multifaceted, cutting across geographical and political lines. In the Kashmir Valley, already reeling under the heavy military presence and the loss of political rights since 2019, the sentiment is one of bitterness and rejection. The phrase “another Indian drama” has become the common refrain. The idea of reserving seats for AJK in an assembly itself largely powerless is a farcical exercise in political theatre designed to distract from the denial of the Kashmiri people’s right to self-determination.
How can elections be held for constituencies in AJK when the Line of Control remains one of the world’s most heavily militarized borders? How can electoral rolls be prepared for a population holding Pakistani passports and participating in AJK politics? The Indian government has provided no answers, because the answers do not exist. The “right to vote” that BJP leaders promise to the people of AJK is a phantom right, as intangible as the territory they claim to represent . The seats will remain vacant not because of a lack of will, but because there is no legal, logistical, or political pathway to fill them.
Within India itself, the bill has sparked a significant, albeit politically fractured, debate. While the ruling BJP and its allies have hailed the bill as fulfilling the “dream of every Indian” to reclaim AJK, opposition parties, including the Congress, have expressed anxiety over the bill’s implications, though their criticism has been tempered by the fact that they are simultaneously debating the Women’s Reservation Bill, also being pushed through Parliament.
Over 60 women’s organizations and human rights groups held a press conference, arguing that the women’s reservation bill is being cynically used as a “bargaining chip to smuggle in delimitation,” which they said went against the unity of India . Regarding the provisions for AJK, Indian legal experts and opposition MPs have pointed out the dangerous precedent this sets. By unilaterally legislating over a territory under the de facto control of another nation, India is violating basic principles of international law, including the UN Charter’s prohibition on the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity of any state.
A senior constitutional expert noted that while India may claim AJK as its own, the Parliament’s legislative competence cannot extend to drawing electoral constituencies in territory where it has no jurisdiction, no administrative apparatus, and no recognition from the local populace.
The international human rights community has also weighed in, expressing deep concern over the legislation’s potential to further destabilize an already hyper-volatile region. While major organizations like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have yet to issue final, detailed reports, their early statements have focused on the violation of democratic principles inherent in the concept of “vacant representation.” True democratic representation, they argue, is predicated on the consent of the governed and the ability of a populace to elect. By reserving seats for a population that cannot vote, India is creating a new category of disenfranchisement. It is asserting a right to represent people who have not asked to be represented, under a constitution they do not recognize, by a government they reject. This is the antithesis of self-determination, a principle enshrined in numerous UN Security Council resolutions regarding the dispute of Jammu and Kashmir. The 1994 unanimous resolution of the Indian Parliament calling for Pakistan to vacate AJK is cited by the government as a precedent, but critics argue that a domestic resolution cannot override binding international commitments or the UN Charter.
The specific political dynamics within Azad Jammu and Kashmir have rendered the Indian government’s move an exercise in self-defeating propaganda. The AJK government has issued a formal statement rejecting the bill as a nullity. All major political parties across the spectrum in AJK—from the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) to the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI)—have passed unanimous resolutions of condemnation. They argue that the 10.4 million people of AJK have their own elected legislature, their own judicial system, and their own identity, and that no parliament in New Delhi has any jurisdiction whatsoever over their land.
The AJK Legislative Assembly went a step further, passing a symbolic resolution declaring that any Indian attempt to enforce such delimitation would be treated as an act of war. This is not a fringe view; it is the unanimous position of AJK’s elected representatives. For the people living along the LoC, the bill is not a theoretical legal manoeuvre but a direct threat. They see it as India creating a “paper justification” for future military aggression.
The response from within the Indian-Occupied Kashmir has been deep political alienation. Mainstream Kashmiri political leaders, including those from the People’s Conference and the National Conference, have used the debate to highlight the hypocrisy of the central government. Sajjad Lone, the north Kashmir leader, recently cautioned in the assembly that unresolved issues of reservation and political injustice pose an existential threat to Kashmiri youth that could trigger a bigger crisis than the rigged 1987 elections, which led to armed insurgency.
He argued that while the government talked about giving rights to people in AJK, it is systematically excluding and disempowering the Kashmiris on its side of the LoC through policies of “otherisation” and unfair reservation quotas that leave only 30 percent of government jobs for the general category, despite the majority of the population falling into it. The comparison is damning: the Indian government claims to be concerned about the political representation of a population it does not control, while simultaneously ignoring the legitimate grievances of the population it ccupies. As Lone pointed out, Kashmiri Muslims are treated as anti-nationals in their own homeland .
The bill represents a dangerous and unprecedented escalation in India’s long-standing territorial dispute with Pakistan and its suppression of Kashmiri self-determination. By attempting to legislate over a territory it does not control and a people who have consistently rejected its claims, India is not only violating international law and United Nations resolutions but also creating a constitutional and political fiction that can only lead to further instability.
The move has been universally rejected by the people of AJK, the people of Indian-Occupied Kashmir, mainstream Kashmiri political parties, human rights organizations, and even critical voices within India. The 24 seats will remain, in reality, forever vacant, serving as a permanent monument to the failure of political negotiation and the triumph of unilateral, irredentist fantasy.
As the world watches, the people of Kashmir continue to assert their right to self-determination, and see not a legitimate legislative act, but an attempt to legitimize an occupation that has already lasted seven decades too long. The only certainty is that this bill, rather than bringing any resolution, has poured more fuel on a fire that threatens to consume the entire region.
Source: Pakistantoday
Note: Shafaqna do not endorse the views expressed in the article
