Gilgit-Baltistan: A Region in Constitutional and Environmental Limbo

For over seven decades, the people of Gilgit-Baltistan (GB) have remained sidelined in decisions that deeply affect their lives. Administered by Pakistan since 1948 under the broader umbrella of the Kashmir dispute, GB’s two million residents continue to exist in a constitutional void. There is no formal recognition of the region in Pakistan’s Constitution, leaving its governance to be shaped arbitrarily by state authorities.

Despite its strategic and ecological significance, GB is often seen by the rest of Pakistan as a scenic backdrop ideal for tourism. Few are aware of its fragile ecology, or the harm caused by unchecked development, such as road construction, luxury resorts, and mineral extraction, without consideration for environmental sustainability or local consent.

GB is not just home to breathtaking mountains and glaciers; it also holds vital natural resources that feed Pakistan’s rivers and economy. However, the people who live there face systemic marginalization. The  introduced Land Reform Act is the latest example. While the name suggests progressive change, the legislation has triggered fear among local communities, activists, and young people, who see it as a vehicle for further exploitation.

The Act claims to replace colonial-era land laws dating back to the British and Sikh rule, under which vast tracts of land were declared ‘barren’ and taken over by the state. These lands, though considered ‘wastelands’ by outsiders, were traditionally used by local communities for agriculture and grazing, and formed the backbone of communal life.

In practice, the new law is filled with vague provisions. It grants excessive powers to the state to determine land ownership and allows non-locals and institutions to acquire land, effectively sidelining the rights of the indigenous population. This opens the door for resource appropriation under the guise of legality, continuing the cycle of dispossession that has long plagued GB.

Unlike Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK), where the State Subject Rule still offers some protection against demographic shifts and land grabs by non-residents, GB lacks any such legal safeguards. Comparatively, India’s controversial abrogation of Article 370 in Jammu and Kashmir was widely criticized for enabling similar demographic and territorial manipulation. Yet GB’s ongoing plight has sparked little national debate.

Resistance to this state encroachment is growing. The Awami Action Committee (AAC), a coalition of activists and political thinkers across ideologies, has been at the forefront of opposing these policies. The recent arrests of AAC leaders reveal a troubling trend towards militarization and suppression of dissent in GB, echoing the pattern seen in other marginalised regions of the country.

The fate of GB’s people and environment continues to hang in the balance. Unless there is a shift towards inclusive governance, constitutional recognition, and environmental justice, the legacy of dispossession will persist, etched in both the mountains and memories of those left unheard.