LAST year, after a high-profile meeting on the status of Gilgit-Baltistan, Interior Minister Sheikh Rashid Ahmed told the media that all political parties had agreed on a provisional provincial status for GB. The meeting was attended by government and opposition parties as well as army chief Gen Qamar Bajwa. Last year on Nov 1, the anniversary of GB’s independence from Dogra rule, Prime Minister Imran Khan, while visiting Gilgit, said GB would be given provisional provincial status.

Going forward, the law and justice ministry recently finalised the draft of the 26th Amendment to the Constitution, submitting it to the prime minister for review. The proposed legislation is aimed at awarding GB provisional provincial status, and is expected to be presented in parliament for debate. If passed by a two-thirds majority in parliament, GB would likely be given the status of province through an amendment in Article 1 of the Constitution. But will this amendment resolve GB’s chronic issues?

Since the independence of Gilgit on Nov 1, 1947, and the end of Dogra rule, Pakistan has administered the region through the centre, initially by imposing the colonial-era FCR and setting up a ministry for Kashmir and the Northern Areas. Dogra forces captured and annexed Baltistan in 1840 while later after the Treaty of Amritsar, Gilgit was also captured. However, other small kingdoms beyond Gilgit remained independent and never came under Dogra subjugation. Hence maintaining that the entire Gilgit region was part of Dogra’s Kashmir state is historically debatable. The locals also argue that Baltistan and Gilgit were taken through force and hence cannot be considered a part of Kashmir.

However, in the early period of the Kashmir dispute, Pakistan merged the region of GB with Kashmir to gain more votes in a possible UN plebiscite on Kashmir. Hence Pakistan’s international position is that Kashmir as of Aug 14, 1947, included GB, and that the issue will be decided later. This makes GB itself a disputed territory between India and Pakistan. This also resulted in the lack of representation of GB lawmakers in the national legislature. GB until 2009 was governed through the centre. In 2009, a reform order transferred some powers to elected representatives. But a parallel system of federally appointed civil servants is still intact; they enjoy more powers and resources. The locals argue that their assembly and lawmakers are not empowered in policymaking and financial matters.

Will the 26th Amendment resolve GB’s chronic issues?

The bill is expected to be passed in the national legislature as the PTI-led government maintains that all parties favour a provisional provincial status for GB. Both the main opposition parties, the PPP and PML-N, have a history of introducing reforms in GB. Zulfikar Ali Bhutto pioneered reforms which abolished the FCR, and ended local raja rule and forced labour in GB. The PPP in 1994 introduced the first party-based elections and in 2009 promulgated the GB Empowerment and Self-Governance Order.

The PML-N in 2015 constituted a high-powered Committee on Constitutional and Administrative Reforms in GB which was convened by the former adviser to the prime minister on foreign affairs, Sartaj Aziz. The committee reviewed the constitutional status and administrative set-up. After consultation with major stakeholders, the committee recommended a provisional provincial status for GB until the final settlement of the Kashmir dispute.

The PTI formed the government for the first time in GB after last year’s election with a promise to address the grievances of locals and it pledged to award GB provisional provincial status. If the amendment goes ahead, the PTI will be the first party to resolve the region’s constitutio­nal ambiguity. Its recent victory in AJK elections is also a sig­­nificant develop­ment as opposition from the AJK asse­mbly against a provisional provincial status for GB is lik­e­ly to be reduced.

For representation of GB in the national legislature, Articles 51 and 59 of the Constitution also need to be amended. But representation is not the only concern. Access for GB’s lawmakers to all constitutional bodies like the National Finance Commission, National Economic Council, Council of Common Interests, the Indus River System Authority, etc will be pivotal. People also want the complete transfer of administrative, financial, and legislative powers from the centre to the (future) province, in keeping with the 18th Amendment.

How legislators will deal with Article 257 which relates to accession of the state of Jammu and Kashmir to Pakistan and to what extent the proposed bill will transfer the powers to GB remains to be seen. Constitutional expert Dr Syed Jaffar Ahmed says that “going beyond our present position on GB might affect Pakistan’s international position on Kashmir issue”.

The writer is lecturer at the School of Economics and Social Sciences, IBA, and author of The Gilgit-Baltistan Conundrum: Dilemmas of Political Integration.

Twitter: @saj_ahmd

Published in Dawn, August 8th, 2021