Hunza at a Crossroads: Choosing Leadership Over Loyalty
Hunza District holds immense geostrategic, geopolitical, and revenue significance for the federal government. Its importance spans centuries, rooted in its position along historic trade routes. This strategic value intensified after the 1917 Socialist Revolution in the former USSR, which triggered the global Cold War between socialism and capitalism. During this period, Hunza gained heightened importance for the British Empire, which sought to contain the spread of socialism into undivided India and Afghanistan. The former State of Hunza shared direct territorial boundaries with Afghanistan and the Central Asian republics, further elevating its strategic relevance. Consequently, the British government employed a range of strategies combining military pressure and diplomatic engagement to assert influence over Hunza, ultimately succeeding through diplomatic intervention as a dominant global power.
Beyond its geostrategic importance, Hunza is home to indigenous communities that have maintained close ties with diverse ethnic groups for over a century. As a result, each clan or ethnic tribe occupies specific areas across the region. These tribal communities developed strong systems of agriculture and livestock breeding, with every group contributing significantly toward self-reliance and agricultural independence. Over time, they have demonstrated themselves to be a progressive, hardworking, and disciplined society within the region.
While strong ethnic and tribal cohesion has long been a defining strength of the region, it has also become a political liability. Voting patterns are frequently based on family, tribal, or ethnic connections rather than leadership ability, a practice that has seriously undermined the emergence of effective political leadership.
A key driver of political decay in the region is the systematic sidelining of genuine political leadership from public life. Public platforms are effectively monopolized by leaders appointed through faith-based institutions, leaving no meaningful space for independent political actors. Political discussion in public gatherings is not merely discouraged but actively condemned, forcing committed political leaders into the background as passive spectators. Paradoxically, once their tenure within these faith-based institutions ends, the same individuals readily enter federal political parties to contest elections. This opportunistic duality not only exposes deep hypocrisy but also severely demoralizes authentic political activists who have sacrificed their careers and personal lives for sustained political struggle.
Another critical reality is that candidates of federal political parties often act as defenders of their parent parties’ interests in the region rather than as advocates for the development and rights of their constituencies. They rely heavily on infrastructure-based slogans to attract voters, while failing to pursue meaningful legislation that serves the long-term political and legal interests of Gilgit-Baltistan. This persistent pattern stands as clear evidence that, despite seven decades of rule, federal parties have been unwilling or unable to grant the region a defined legal status or to safeguard its fundamental political rights.
If an elected representative ultimately serves interests other than those of the people who voted for them, it raises a fundamental question about the purpose of democracy itself. Why should citizens use their most powerful democratic instrument the vote to elect representatives who act on behalf of external forces, party headquarters, or distant power centers rather than their own constituencies? Such a practice reduces democratic participation to a symbolic exercise, stripping the vote of its true meaning and weakening public trust in the political system.
In Gilgit-Baltistan, this concern is particularly urgent. For decades, elected representatives have often prioritized loyalty to federal parties over the genuine political, legal, and economic needs of the region. While development projects and infrastructure slogans are repeatedly used to secure votes, core issues such as constitutional recognition, political autonomy, and long-term economic rights remain unresolved. This pattern has left the people of Gilgit-Baltistan politically marginalized despite their consistent participation in electoral processes.
At this critical juncture, the responsibility lies with the electorate to reclaim the true value of their democratic choice. Voting should not be an act of habit, fear, or short-term gain, but a conscious decision to empower leaders who are rooted in the region and accountable to its people. Electing genuine political representatives those who are willing to challenge unjust structures and advocate persistently for political and economic rights is essential for transforming Gilgit-Baltistan’s future.
Democracy can only function when representatives reflect the will, struggles, and aspirations of the people they serve. Choosing authentic leadership is not merely a political preference; it is a necessary step toward securing dignity, rights, and self-determination for Gilgit-Baltistan.
