The question of whether Gilgit-Baltistan is a part of Pakistan has been the subject of debate, diplomacy, and discontent since the very birth of the two nations that emerged from the British Raj in 1947 – India and Pakistan. Nestled amidst the majestic Karakoram and western Himalayas, this region is not just breathtakingly beautiful but also geopolitically significant. Its strategic location, rich cultural heritage and the ambiguity surrounding its political status have made it one of the most sensitive and discussed areas in South Asia.
Gilgit-Baltistan, formerly known as the Northern Areas is currently administered by Pakistan. However, it is not constitutionally a part of Pakistan in the same way that Punjab or Sindh. The region does not enjoy provincial status under the Pakistani Constitution nor does it have representation in Pakistan’s National Assembly and Senate. Instead, it functions under a special administrative framework. The Government of Gilgit-Baltistan was established under the Gilgit-Baltistan Empowerment and Self-Governance Order of 2009, which created an elected assembly and a council. Yet, many argue that these structures fall short of granting the region genuine autonomy or constitutional rights.
To understand the roots of the current situation one must go back to the momentous year of 1947. At the time of Partition, the princely state of Jammu and Kashmir was ruled by Maharaja Hari Singh, a Hindu monarch ruling over a Muslim-majority population. Facing an invasion from tribal militias backed by Pakistan and internal pressure from his Muslim-majority subjects the Maharaja signed the Instrument of Accession to India on October 26, 1947. This legally brought the entire state of Jammu and Kashmir including Gilgit-Baltistan into the Union of India.
However, the situation in Gilgit was already in flux. Before the Instrument of Accession was signed British officers commanding the Gilgit Scouts had revolted against the Maharaja’s rule and declared the region’s allegiance to Pakistan. The move was soon formalized by the Pakistani administration which took control of the area and placed it under the control of the Ministry of Kashmir Affairs. India contested this asserting that the entire state including Gilgit-Baltistan was legally part of its territory by virtue of the Maharaja’s accession.
The United Nations got involved soon after the conflict began between India and Pakistan over Jammu and Kashmir. The United Nation resolution of 1948 called for a plebiscite to determine the will of the people but that plebiscite never happened. Over time, both countries entrenched their control over the parts they administered. Pakistan administered Gilgit-Baltistan and what it called “Azad Jammu and Kashmir,” while India controlled Jammu the Kashmir Valley and Ladakh.
Despite Pakistan’s administrative control it has never formally annexed Gilgit-Baltistan or granted it provincial status citing the pending resolution of the Kashmir dispute as the primary reason. For decades, Pakistan has maintained that its control over the region is temporary and that the final status of Gilgit-Baltistan will be determined in accordance with a United Nation mandated plebiscite – a position that also prevents it from giving full constitutional rights to the people living there.
This legal and constitutional limbo has had a significant impact on the people of Gilgit-Baltistan. While they participate in local governance and enjoy some benefits of, development they do not have the same rights as citizens in other parts of Pakistan. There is no representation in the national legislature and laws passed by Pakistan’s parliament do not automatically apply to Gilgit-Baltistan unless specifically extended. This lack of representation has led to repeated protests and movements within the region with people demanding either integration into Pakistan as a full-fledged province or greater autonomy.
Over the years, several political and constitutional reforms have been proposed and implemented in Pakistan to address the region’s grievances. The Gilgit-Baltistan Empowerment and Self-Governance Order of 2009 was seen as a significant step in granting more autonomy. Yet, critics argue that real power still resides with the Gilgit-Baltistan Council which is chaired by the Prime Minister of Pakistan and includes several members from outside the region. Many see this as a continuation of centralized control despite the appearance of local governance.
In recent years, there have been growing calls within Pakistan to grant Gilgit-Baltistan provincial status. Political leaders including Prime Ministers and cabinet ministers have floated the idea arguing that the people of the region deserve full citizenship rights. However, such moves have been met with strong opposition from India, which views them as a violation of international agreements and as an attempt to unilaterally alter the status of a disputed territory.
India has consistently maintained that the entire region of Jammu and Kashmir including Gilgit-Baltistan is an integral part of its territory. In response to any administrative or constitutional changes in Gilgit-Baltistan by Pakistan, India has issued strong statements rejecting them as illegal and unacceptable. The matter has also found mention in Indian parliament debates, where Gilgit-Baltistan is referred to as part of India under illegal Pakistani occupation.
Another factor complicating the matter is the growing presence of China in the region. The China-Pakistan Economic Corridor a flagship project under China’s Belt and Road Initiative passes through Gilgit-Baltistan. This has brought enormous investment and development to the region including roads, bridges and energy projects. But it has also raised concerns in India, which sees the project as a violation of its sovereignty. The involvement of China has added another layer of international complexity to the issue making any resolution even more difficult.
Beyond the geopolitical dimensions the question of identity is also crucial. The people of Gilgit-Baltistan are ethnically and culturally diverse including Shina-speaking Dards, Baltis and other ethnic groups. Many in the region identify as Pakistani and want to be part of the country officially and constitutionally. Yet, there is also a significant section that feels marginalized and excluded due to the lack of constitutional recognition. Some voices have even called for independence or a special autonomous status though these remain on the fringes.
Religious dynamics have also played a role in shaping the politics of the region. Gilgit-Baltistan has a significant Shia population and there have been instances of sectarian violence in the past. Critics have accused the state of demographic manipulation and underdevelopment to keep the region politically subdued. These tensions have at times erupted into protests and clashes, further highlighting the fragile state of affairs.
In conclusion, Gilgit-Baltistan occupies a unique and complicated position. It is administered by Pakistan its people largely identify with the country and it plays a key role in Pakistan’s strategic calculus. Yet, it is not constitutionally part of Pakistan and its future remains tied to the unresolved issue of Kashmir. Any move to integrate the region fully into Pakistan risks international backlash and could derail the already precarious prospects for peace in South Asia.
The people of Gilgit-Baltistan continue to live in a constitutional grey zone. They are citizens of a country that administers them but doesn’t officially consider them part of its federation. Their voices though growing louder often go unheard in the larger geopolitical game. As the world watches developments in the region with a keen eye the fundamental question remains unanswered: is Gilgit-Baltistan truly a part of Pakistan, or is it a pawn in a much larger and unresolved territorial dispute.
