Wheat Subsidy Protest in Gilgit-Baltisatan and The Struggle for Autonomy
By Tehzeeb Hussain Bercha
In the heart of the Himalayas, where rugged mountains whisper tales of centuries-old struggles and triumphs, lies Gilgit-Baltistan—a region fraught with complexities rooted in the Kashmir issue. The people here, united by a shared desire for basic rights, especially continuation of the wheat subsidy, have become vocal champions, transcending religious and regional differences.
The echoes of discontent reached a crescendo on December 1, 2023, as a widespread shutter-down strike paralyzed all districts of Gilgit-Baltistan. The catalyst for this protest was the government’s contentious decision to withdraw the wheat subsidy, a move that incited vehement opposition from the local population. A compelling trend becomes apparent when people from various castes and races unite to champion their rights in Gilgit Baltistan. Regrettably, these collective endeavors are often overshadowed by terrorist acts, particularly in Gilgit city or along the Karakoram highway. These incidents often reveal sectarian motivations. On December 2, unidentified assailants in northern Pakistan fired upon a bus, resulting in the tragic death of at least eight passengers and injuries to 26 others.
Historically, the origins of wheat subsidies in the region find no mention in UN resolutions or the Simla Agreement. However, a pivotal moment emerged when Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and Indira Gandhi, post the Simla Agreement, shouldered the responsibility of facilitating food supply to the units of Jammu and Kashmir administered by Pakistan and India. This historical gesture laid the foundation for the people’s reliance on subsidies, particularly on wheat.
During a period of socio-economic upheaval marked by the abolition of the Rajgiri system, Bhutto strategically announced subsidies on various essential items, including sugar, kerosene, salt, cooking oil, and wheat. Over time, wheat became the focal point of these subsidies, and persistent attempts have been made to eliminate it.
Bhutto’s vision for integrating Gilgit-Baltistan into Pakistan faced challenges due to UN resolutions. Resorting to some measures, Bhutto abolished the state subject rule, which effects agricultural development and contributing to the contemporary issues faced by the region.
To understand the intricacies of the present situation, delving into the historical context becomes imperative. At the time of the subcontinent’s partition, Gilgit-Baltistan was a province of the erstwhile state of Jammu and Kashmir, governed by the Sikh Empire under Maharaja Ranjit Singh. The ripple effects of the empire’s defeat by the British led to the British selling the rulership of Jammu and Kashmir to Gulab Singh in 1846.
Gulab Singh’s land reforms, including the Resident State Subject Rule Act of 1927, aimed to protect the region’s lands and ensure the rights and citizenship of its people. However, in 1974, Bhutto suspended the state subject rule, replacing it with the Northern Areas Natural Rules of 1978, effectively declaring barren lands as the property of the Khalsa Sarkar. This move, a breach of Security Council resolutions, perpetuated the issues that persist today.
In contrast to the situation in Azad Kashmir, where the resident state law safeguards property rights, Gilgit-Baltistan faces a unique challenge due to the suspension of the state subject rule. The region, entangled in the Kashmir dispute, remains outside the purview of Pakistan’s 1973 constitution.
Three significant decisions by the Supreme Court of Pakistan further underscore the legal complexities surrounding Gilgit-Baltistan. Governed by the Frontier Crimes Regulation (FCR) from 1949 to 1973 and later by Presidential Decrees, the region’s fate remains in limbo, as UN resolutions dictate that a plebiscite must determine its future.
The urgent need of the hour lies in lifting the suspension of the rule of law, paving the way for the establishment of an institution to manage Gilgit-Baltistan’s resources. A mechanism akin to the National Finance Commission (NFC) can ensure fair resource allocation, tapping into the wealth generated by the Sust Dry Port, Karakoram Highway, Indus River, K-2, Diamer Bhasha Dam, minerals, and forests.
Should such an institution come to fruition, the billions generated in royalties could address the longstanding deprivation faced by the people of Gilgit-Baltistan. It would mark a significant step towards alleviating their struggles, eliminating the need to protest for wheat subsidies—a saga intricately woven into the historical fabric of a region yearning for its rightful place in the annals of time.
In conclusion, the wheat subsidy protest in Gilgit-Baltistan is not just about a basic commodity but reflects the deeper issues embedded in the region’s history and its ongoing struggle for autonomy. As the people of Gilgit-Baltistan voice their concerns, Pakistan must pay heed to the intricate tapestry of legal complexities and historical injustices that have led to this moment. The resolution lies not only in addressing the immediate concerns but also in fostering a sustainable framework that recognizes the region’s unique status and empowers its people to shape their destiny.
The author is a freelance columnist who posts on ‘X’ as @tehzeeb_says
