recently, for almost a fortnight, Gilgit-Baltistan saw huge political congregations and sit-ins with shutter-down strikes across its seven districts. The protest initially began against the withdrawal of the wheat subsidy given to the region by Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto.

But the protesters went on to demand the implementation of a nine-point charter including basic civic rights and local governance issues. The Awami Action Committee (AAC), an alliance of 23 political and religious parties, delivered an eloquent appeal to the public and ruling elite via this peaceful demonstration.

The call for strikes may have been given by nationalists and religious leaders, with mainstream politicians opting to keep mum. But the enthusiasm and participation of people from all walks of life, including the Sunni and Shia clergy, has been noteworthy. In the last many weeks, not only have Shias and Sunnis avoided acrimonious debates, they have also offered prayers together under one imam, which is unusual in a region that has seen sectarian strife for the last many decades.

If such is the power of their capacity for political mobilisation, the past apathy of the residents of the region with respect to the non-fulfilment of their political and constitutional rights is incomprehensible. One might also ask why the AAC chose to initially campaign against the withdrawal of the wheat subsidy and not for political rights. But then, seen through a theoretical framework, it becomes obvious that both situations reflected what was in fact rational behaviour.

Nobel Laureate Mancur Olson has said that the mobilisation and organisation of any large group is only possible when the individuals have a personal incentive ie something to gain from it. In fact, over the past years, the parties in the AAC had nothing to offer to mobilise the masses for a political struggle.

Having said that, it must be pointed out that the AAC is the outcome of a decades-long struggle by nationalists. It is aware that the local people cannot be enticed merely by political slogans. So, the withdrawal of the wheat subsidy came as an opportunity which it grabbed. Of course, the ones most affected were the poor and lower middle class, the frontrunners of any revolution. Soon, they had taken to the streets on the call of the AAC.

While it takes time to stir the conscience of any ruling elite, a valuable lesson has been learnt from the GB sit-in: by showing a united front, and through peaceful methods, people can organise themselves to exert powerful pressure on the rulers. In fact, if the sit-in continued for a few more days, components of the rich and influential political elite might have joined in to elicit public sympathy even if for their own political ends.

The stage set by the AAC also shows how disparate groups can come together. Once rivals, members of the Shia and Sunni community appear to be talking the same language. They seem determine to struggle together for a goal that was secondary to their struggle just a few days ago, and now want their political and constitutional rights, and not only reasonable wheat prices. As one AAC leaders said: “We now have the subsidy of peace.”

Despite having the opportunity to do so, credit must go to the AAC leaders for not playing with the emotions of the protesters, and wisely setting the stage for demanding long-term political rights.

In contrast to the protest by the people, the two-week hibernation of the administration was reflective of routine bureaucratic venality and laziness. The insensitive attitude towards the sentiments of the masses and the blame game, with the federal government putting the onus of tackling the issue on the GB government and vice versa, has unmasked a lack of resolve to tackle genuine public issues.

In the aftermath of the protests, any attempt on behalf of the administration to sabotage the prevailing unity by detaining AAC leaders or similar moves would be disastrous. Instead, the GB government should appreciate the AAC for promoting religious, ethnic and linguistic harmony, something that both the federal and provincial governments have not been able to do in the last three decades.

Finally, the PML-N act the centre has been too insular and has missed what could have been a great opportunity for it to win support. With the GB elections on the horizon, a popular decision by the centre would have also benefited the PML-N enormously. Whatever comes next, the recent sit-in is a harbinger of an enduring change in GB — both in politics and religious debate.

The writer taught at a public-sector university in Pakistan and is currently pursuing a doctorate in economics and public policy.

Twitter: @saranjam 79