Shabir Ahmad
A powerful wave of public and political demand for constitutional rights is rising across Gilgit-Baltistan, laying bare Pakistan’s long record of deliberate denial, administrative control without accountability, and systematic economic exploitation of a strategically vital territory.
The Gilgit-Baltistan Assembly’s unanimous July 2026 resolution seeking provisional provincial status, representation in Pakistan’s National Assembly and Senate, and a share in the National Finance Commission Award has crystallised decades of frustration. Far from a routine political demand, the resolution is a direct indictment of successive Pakistani governments that have kept nearly two million people in a constitutional vacuum while extracting the region’s resources and using its geography for strategic and economic projects.
Since 1947-48, Pakistan has administered Gilgit-Baltistan without ever granting it the full rights of a province. The region remains outside Article 1 of Pakistan’s Constitution. It has no elected representation in the federal parliament, no guaranteed share of national resources under the NFC Award, and only partial protection of fundamental rights. Governance has been conducted through presidential orders, the 2009 Empowerment Order and the 2018 Gilgit-Baltistan Order, rather than constitutional provisions. These arrangements created a local assembly and chief minister while carefully preserving Islamabad’s absolute control and the fiction that the territory’s final status remains tied to the larger Kashmir dispute.
The consequences have been stark. Gilgit-Baltistan generates significant value through hydropower potential estimated in tens of thousands of megawatts, tourism, mineral wealth and its role as the land corridor for the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor. Yet local communities receive neither royalties nor meaningful fiscal autonomy. Land and resource decisions are frequently driven from Islamabad. The revocation of the State Subject Rules decades ago opened the door to demographic pressures and settlement patterns that many residents view as eroding local identity and economic opportunities. Youth, who form a large share of the population, have grown up watching resources leave the region while basic services, reliable electricity, affordable wheat and quality infrastructure, remain inadequate.
Public anger has repeatedly erupted. Earlier protests organised by the Awami Action Committee and other groups over wheat subsidies, power tariffs and revenue sharing were met with heavy-handed responses. Reports of detentions of rights activists, restrictions on movement and the use of legal instruments to curb dissent have reinforced the perception that Islamabad prioritises control over genuine empowerment. Student and civil society voices have become more assertive, rejecting the limited political space offered to previous generations.
The June 2026 assembly elections and the subsequent formation of a PPP-led government under Chief Minister Amjad Hussain have not altered the underlying reality. While PPP Chairman Bilawal Bhutto Zardari campaigned on promises of ownership rights, 18th Amendment-style protections and constitutional progress, and while the new chief minister has spoken of completing the “constitutional journey,” the pattern of delayed committees, unfulfilled packages and carefully worded provisional proposals continues. The latest resolution itself frames provincial status as provisional and subject to a future Kashmir settlement, language that many local voices see as yet another mechanism to postpone full equality.
From the Indian standpoint, Gilgit-Baltistan forms an integral part of the erstwhile state of Jammu and Kashmir. New Delhi has consistently rejected unilateral Pakistani steps to alter the status of territories under its illegal occupation. The growing local demand for rights is viewed in this light as evidence of the failure of Pakistani administration to deliver legitimate governance or citizenship protections.
For the people of Gilgit-Baltistan, the core issues are clear. They pay taxes and contribute to national projects yet remain excluded from the constitutional framework that defines citizenship in Pakistan. They watch their natural wealth fuel external priorities while facing chronic shortages at home. They elect local representatives who lack the power to secure a fair share of national resources or protect fundamental rights on equal terms with citizens of Punjab, Sindh, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa or Balochistan.
The unanimous assembly resolution and the broader public mobilisation represent more than a political demand. They are a rejection of perpetual legal limbo, resource extraction without accountability, and the repeated cycle of promises that dissolve into further delay. Whether Islamabad responds with genuine constitutional reform or another round of cosmetic arrangements will determine if this growing demand produces change or simply deepens the sense of betrayal that has defined Pakistan’s record in Gilgit-Baltistan for nearly eight decades.
