By DJ Mathal
There are moments in the politics of Gilgit-Baltistan that go beyond the scope of a single assembly session or a resolution and become the beginning of a new chapter in history. The unanimous resolution passed by the Gilgit-Baltistan Assembly in support of granting the region provisional provincial status can also be regarded as one of those historic events. The significance of this resolution lies in the fact that it has once again brought to the national agenda a constitutional question that has remained unresolved for decades—a question that is not only the concern of the people of Gilgit-Baltistan but is also directly linked to the State of Pakistan, the Constitution, the federation, the Kashmir dispute, and Pakistan’s international obligations.
This is not the first time that the constitutional future of Gilgit-Baltistan has been debated. However, it is the first time that both the government and the opposition appear to be united on the same position. Despite their political differences, Chief Minister Amjad Hussain Advocate and Leader of the Opposition Hafiz Hafeez-ur-Rehman shared a common view in their speeches that the people of Gilgit-Baltistan can no longer endure constitutional uncertainty. Both leaders emphasized that securing constitutional rights is no longer merely a political slogan but has become a national necessity.
One of the key features of this resolution is that it fully takes into account the Kashmir dispute and the resolutions of the United Nations. Pakistan has consistently maintained that Gilgit-Baltistan has historically been part of the former State of Jammu and Kashmir. Therefore, while determining its constitutional status, the United Nations resolutions and Pakistan’s international position cannot be disregarded. For this reason, while demanding provisional provincial status, the Assembly clearly stated that such an arrangement would not, in any way, affect the final settlement of the Kashmir dispute.
Following August 5, 2019, the political situation in the region underwent a fundamental change. India revoked Articles 370 and 35A, thereby abolishing the special constitutional status of Indian-administered Jammu and Kashmir. This move not only altered the political landscape of South Asia but also created the need for Pakistan to adopt a new constitutional and diplomatic strategy. While Pakistan rejected India’s action, it also brought greater attention to the question of what constitutional position should be accorded to the people of Gilgit-Baltistan so that, on one hand, Pakistan’s principled stance remains intact, and on the other, the people are not deprived of their fundamental constitutional rights.
It also cannot be overlooked that over the past seven decades, numerous committees, reform packages, and governance orders have been introduced for Gilgit-Baltistan. At various times, recommendations were made for provincial status, proposals were put forward for its merger with another province, limited self-governance was granted, and administrative powers were expanded. However, despite all these measures, the fundamental constitutional issue has remained unresolved.
The 2009 Governance Order marked an important milestone for Gilgit-Baltistan, as it gave formal shape to the institutions of the Assembly, the Cabinet, and the office of the Chief Minister for the first time. Subsequently, under the 2018 Reforms Order, the Assembly was granted additional powers over land, minerals, forests, tourism, and several other sectors. Despite these developments, Gilgit-Baltistan has still not attained the status of a constitutional unit under the Constitution of Pakistan.
It is this very gap that has deprived the people of the region of full representation in the National Assembly, the Senate, the National Finance Commission, the Council of Common Interests, and other constitutional institutions. Over time, this deprivation has continued to evolve into political unrest.
Chief Minister Amjad Hussain Advocate rightly pointed out that administrative reforms alone are not sufficient; a permanent constitutional solution is essential. If the people of a region pay taxes, contribute to national security, and play a role in the country’s economy, yet are still denied full constitutional recognition, such a situation cannot continue indefinitely.
The speech of Leader of the Opposition Hafiz Hafeez-ur-Rehman gave the debate a more realistic direction. He made it clear that while the resolution is undoubtedly important, the real test lies in Parliament. Without a constitutional amendment, neither provincial status nor full representation can be achieved. This is the fundamental issue on which all political forces should focus their attention.
Pakistan’s parliamentary history bears witness to the fact that constitutional issues cannot be resolved through resolutions alone. They require political consensus, constitutional amendments, legal drafting, a parliamentary majority, and commitment at the federal level. Without these elements, even the best resolutions remain confined to official files.
The report of the Sartaj Aziz Committee holds particular significance in this entire debate. It was seriously considered by successive governments and was regarded as a comprehensive analysis of the constitutional issue of Gilgit-Baltistan. The greatest strength of the report was that it sought to strike a balance between the Kashmir dispute, Pakistan’s international position, and the constitutional rights of the people of Gilgit-Baltistan.
There is a need to ensure that this report is not treated merely as an official document and ignored. Instead, its recommendations should once again be considered at the national level. Likewise, subsequent constitutional proposals and the recommendations of various committees can be consolidated to develop a practical and widely acceptable constitutional framework.
The geographical importance of Gilgit-Baltistan requires no introduction. The region is situated at the crossroads of China, Afghanistan, and India. A key route of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) passes through this area. Home to some of the world’s highest peaks, vast glaciers, extensive mineral reserves, abundant water resources, and exceptional hydropower potential, the region holds immense importance for Pakistan’s economy and national security.
A legitimate question is therefore raised: can a region of such immense geographical and economic significance continue to remain in a constitutionally undefined position? The answer is undoubtedly no.
The Diamer-Bhasha Dam, the Dasu Project, other hydropower projects, and Pakistan’s future energy policy are directly linked with Gilgit-Baltistan. This is why issues such as net hydel profit, mineral resources, a share in the National Finance Commission (NFC), and the equitable distribution of national development resources have now become not merely economic matters but constitutional ones as well.
If Gilgit-Baltistan is not allocated an appropriate share in the NFC Award, if it has no representation in the Senate, if it lacks an effective voice in the National Assembly, and if it is denied participation in the Council of Common Interests, then the very concept of fairness in the distribution of resources remains incomplete.
It is also noteworthy that both the government and the opposition in the Assembly proposed the formation of an All Parties Committee. This could prove to be a positive step, provided it is not reduced to a symbolic forum but is instead given a clear mandate, a defined timeframe, and practical responsibilities. The committee should maintain continuous engagement with the federal government, Parliament, national political parties, constitutional experts, and relevant institutions, and play its role in taking the draft constitutional amendment to its logical conclusion.
Similarly, a broader All Parties Conference or a national jirga could also prove beneficial, where representatives of all schools of thought, lawyers, constitutional experts, youth, civil society, religious leadership, and the business community could jointly formulate a national consensus.
Throughout this entire process, the most important element is political unity. In the past, political parties frequently blamed one another over the constitutional issue of Gilgit-Baltistan, making serious progress at the federal level difficult. The current unanimous resolution presents an opportunity to change that bitter tradition. If all political parties genuinely consider this to be an issue of public rights, then it must be pursued through national consensus rather than being used as a tool for future elections or political point-scoring.
The federal government also bears the responsibility of not treating this resolution as merely a formal document. If Pakistan truly wishes to fully integrate the people of Gilgit-Baltistan into the national mainstream, it must initiate practical steps toward a constitutional amendment. Dialogue among parliamentary parties, consultation with constitutional experts, and the development of political consensus have now become indispensable.
It should also be kept in mind that granting constitutional rights does not in any way mean abandoning Pakistan’s position on the Kashmir dispute. There are several constitutional models around the world where interim arrangements have provided people with full rights while preserving the state’s position on international disputes. Pakistan, too, can adopt such a balanced constitutional solution that safeguards both public rights and its national stance.
For decades, the people of Gilgit-Baltistan have made countless sacrifices. They have played an important role in national defence, national security, tourism, energy, water resources, and economic development. The time has now come for these sacrifices to be acknowledged not only in speeches but also in the pages of the Constitution.
The unanimous resolution is undoubtedly a promising beginning, but it is not the destination; it is merely the first stage of the journey. True success will come when the Parliament of Pakistan approves a constitutional amendment, Gilgit-Baltistan is granted effective representation in the National Assembly and the Senate, its share in the NFC is ensured, its presence in national constitutional institutions is recognized, and its people receive all the constitutional, political, and democratic rights that are the fundamental entitlement of every citizen of Pakistan.
Today, the eyes of the people of Gilgit-Baltistan are fixed on Islamabad. The decision now is not merely about a resolution but about national political wisdom, constitutional courage, and federal commitment. If this historic opportunity is seized, it will not only mark the beginning of a new era for the people of Gilgit-Baltistan but will also represent a significant step toward making Pakistan’s federal structure stronger, more balanced, and more democratic.
