A Case for Tier-Differentiated Voting Rights for Displaced Kashmiri Hindus
By GL Raina
Thirty-seven years after the forced exodus of the minority Hindu community from Kashmir, India continues to treat displacement as a logistical inconvenience rather than a democratic wound. The ethnic cleansing of Kashmiri Hindus is a documented and nationally acknowledged tragedy. Yet, beyond compensation employment package and transit accommodations, a quieter erosion persists — the erosion of participatory rights in everyday civic life.
Much has been written about their right to vote in Assembly and Parliamentary elections from their native constituencies. The Election Commission of India has made special arrangements enabling displaced voters to exercise franchise in their original constituencies in Jammu & Kashmir. The community participates enthusiastically. They see it not merely as a political act, but as a civilizational affirmation: we belong, and we have not relinquished our homeland.
However, beneath this symbolic continuity lies a structural contradiction that the nation has yet to confront. Across cities and towns, displaced Kashmiri Hindus reside in municipal wards. They pay taxes. They pay water and sanitation charges. Their children attend local schools. They rely on urban infrastructure managed by municipal corporations and committees. They contribute economically and socially to the areas where they presently live.
Yet they cannot vote for the ward representatives who govern those very services.
This is not an oversight. It is a consequence of rigid electoral architecture.
The Constitutional Framework and Its Blind Spot
Article 326 of the Constitution of India and the Representation of the People Act, 1950 anchor voter enrollment to the concept of “ordinary residence.” A citizen may ordinarily be enrolled in only one constituency. This singular-enrollment principle assumes geographic stability — that citizens reside in one settled location reflective of both daily life and political identity.
For most citizens, that assumption holds. But For a community forced out by terror, it does not. Indian courts have interpreted “ordinary residence” not merely as physical presence but as a habitual and intentional place of stay. A person temporarily absent for employment may retain primary residence elsewhere. In the case of displaced Kashmiri Hindus, the absence from their native homes was neither temporary nor voluntary. It was thrust upon them.
Yet they continue to be treated, administratively and electorally, as ordinary residents of their ancestral constituencies for Assembly and Parliamentary purposes. The State itself recognizes this reality through special voting arrangements.
Herein lies the paradox.
If they are considered ordinary residents of their native places for higher-tier elections, they are excluded from enrolling as voters in municipal constituencies where they currently reside. The result is a democratic gap: civic responsibility without civic representation.
Local Governance Without Electoral Accountability
Urban local bodies are not ornamental institutions. They decide on water supply, sanitation, roads, street lighting, public health, building permissions, and local taxation. They are the closest tier of governance to citizens’ daily lives.
When a significant population residing within a ward cannot vote for its councillor, electoral accountability weakens. Representatives know that a sizable, tax-paying segment has no say in their selection or removal. This creates structural indifference.
India prides itself on grassroots democracy. Yet in this case, grassroots democracy bypasses those whose roots were violently severed.
One Person, One Vote — But Per Tier
Critics may argue that permitting enrollment in two constituencies violates the doctrine of “one person, one vote.” That principle, however, operates within the same representative tier. It prevents duplication within a Legislative Assembly or Parliamentary election. It does not constitutionally mandate that all tiers of governance be tied to a single geographic basis.
India’s electoral system functions across multiple tiers:
Municipal / Panchayat
State Legislative Assembly
Parliament
Each tier has a distinct constitutional purpose. The State Election Commission constituted under the Constitution (73rd and 74th Amendments) Act, 1992 for each State / Union Territory is vested with the power of conduct of elections to the District Panchayats, Panchayat Unions, Village Panchayats, Municipal Corporations, Municipal Councils and Town Panchayats. While the election to the State legislature and Parliament is the responsibility of the Election commission of India.
Local governance is tied to physical residence and service delivery. State and national representation may legitimately reflect domicile, long-term belonging, and identity.
The current model fails to distinguish between these functions. It binds all tiers to a single territorial enrollment, ignoring the lived realities of displacement.
A Structured Reform: Tier-Differentiated Elector Status
India’s democracy must evolve in response to exceptional historical circumstances. A practical and constitutionally defensible reform would be the introduction of a “Tier-Differentiated Elector” category.
Under such a framework:
Municipal / Local Body Voting → At place of actual residence and employment.
State Assembly and Parliamentary Voting → From declared ancestral/domicile constituency.
This preserves the integrity of “one vote per tier.” There would be no duplication within Assembly rolls and no duplication within Parliamentary rolls. A citizen would exercise one vote at each level — but from bases aligned with the nature of representation.
Local representation would reflect present habitation and economic contribution. State and national representation would preserve historic belonging and political continuity.
This is not an innovation without precedent. Service voters, armed forces personnel, and certain categories of absentee voters already receive tailored electoral mechanisms. Electoral law has demonstrated flexibility where national interest demands it.
Extending calibrated flexibility to a terror-displaced indigenous community is not constitutional adventurism. It is moral consistency.
Safeguards Against Misuse
Concerns about duplication or electoral manipulation can be addressed through robust safeguards:
Centralized roll synchronization under the Election Commission of India.
Automated blocking of duplication within the same tier.
Legally binding domicile affidavits for Assembly and Parliamentary enrollment.
Defined minimum residency thresholds for municipal enrollment.
Digital roll integration with constitutional safeguards for privacy and data protection.
Technology today makes what was administratively difficult decades ago entirely feasible.
Beyond Mechanics: A Question of Dignity
For displaced Kashmiri Hindus, retaining enrollment in their native constituencies is not electoral convenience. It is a civilizational responsibility. To relinquish it would symbolically validate the very forces that sought their erasure.
At the same time, denying them a say in the civic governance of their present homes perpetuates a second-tier existence.
Democracy must not penalize exile.
A republic that accommodated the mobility of seasonal workers and service personnel can certainly accommodate the displacement of a community driven out by violence. The alternative is quiet disenfranchisement at the most intimate level of governance.
Strengthening, Not Diluting Democracy
Far from weakening electoral principles, tier-differentiated voting would strengthen participatory democracy. It would align accountability with habitation while preserving representation with heritage.
It would close the gap between taxation and representation.
It would ensure that urban local bodies cannot ignore a segment of residents who have no ballot power.
Most importantly, it would send a signal: that the Indian State does not treat displacement as permanent political diminishment.
The Moral Imperative
Thirty-seven years is an entire generation. Children born in camps have grown into adults who have never seen their ancestral homes, yet remain enrolled there as voters. They carry memory without physical presence.
India’s democracy must be strong enough to hold both realities — roots and residence.
A tier-differentiated electoral model would not merely amend voter rolls. It would restore democratic agency to a community that has endured dispossession without abandoning constitutional faith.
In doing so, the Republic would affirm a simple principle:
Belonging cannot be erased by terror.
Participation cannot be denied by rigidity.
And democracy must adapt — not stagnate — when history demands justice.
( Girdhari Lal Raina is a former Member of the legislative council of Jammu Kashmir and spokesperson of BJP JK-UT)
