Proposal to make Gilgit-Baltistan a province of Pakistan

Mr. Sartaj Aziz,
Adviser on National Security and Foreign Policy,
Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
Islamabad.

Subject : Proposal to make Gilgit-Baltistan a province of Pakistan

Dear Mr Adviser,

It has been a long-standing wish of the people of Gilgit-Baltistan that the territory should be fully integrated with Pakistan and be given the status of a province. This demand dates back to 1947, when the people of the area rose up against Dogra rule and declared their accession to Pakistan. Pakistan did not accept the accession in view of the fact that Gilgit-Baltistan is considered to be a part of the disputed state of Jammu and Kashmir.

  1. For about six decades after it declared its accession to Pakistan, Gilgit-Baltistan was administered by the Government of Pakistan directly, and the people of the territory did not have any representative institutions. The Gilgit-Baltistan Empowerment and Self-Governance Order of 2009 for the first time set up a representative government and legislature. While this step has been welcomed by the people of Gilgit-Baltistan as a step in the right direction, it still falls short of their aspiration to be fully integrated with Pakistan and for constitutionally guaranteed autonomy at par with the provinces of Pakistan. Reflecting this popular demand, the Gilgit-Baltistan Legislative Assembly elected under this Order has thrice adopted resolutions demanding that the territory be given the status of a province of Pakistan. The last such resolution was adopted by the Assembly on 11 August 2015.

 

  1. The situation in Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK) is somewhat different. Unlike Gilgit-Baltistan, it has a constitution that was adopted by an elected Assembly. AJK has also had representative government and an elected legislature for much longer.

 

  1. But in AJK as well, there has been a demand for greater autonomy and devolution of powers to the AJK government and Legislative Assembly. In particular, political and civil society circles in AJK have been calling for representation in federal institutions for consultation and coordination between the Federation and its component units, namely the Council of Common Interests, the National Economic Council and the National Finance Commission and in the Indus River System Authority.

 

  1. You would recall that the Association for the Rights of the People of Jammu and Kashmir (ARJK), a non-profit organisation with its central office in Muzaffarabad (AJK), has discussed this matter with you on a few occasions. Earlier this year, Justice (Retd.) Syed Manzoor Hussain Gilani, Chairman of the Association met you and presented to you the second edition of a book containing the Association’s proposals for enhanced autonomy and empowerment of Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan. These proposals, which were first made by the ARJK in a book published in 2012 and have since been partially revised in the light of inputs received from political and civil society circles of AJK and GB, are designed both to meet the democratic aspirations of the people of the two territories and to end the state of constitutional limbo in which they are currently placed. It is expected that by providing a model of enhanced autonomy and improved system of self-governance, the proposed reforms would also strengthen pro-Pakistan opinion among the people of occupied Kashmir.

 

  1. According to press reports, the Government is now considering making Gilgit-Baltistan a province of Pakistan and a committee has been set up under your chairmanship to make concrete recommendations.

 

  1. While the proposal has been welcomed across the board in Gilgit-Baltistan, it has been opposed by the AJK Government and most of the political parties of AJK.

 

  1. The proposal to make Gilgit-Baltistan a province has been criticised also by the leaders of the freedom movement in Occupied Kashmir, among them Syed Ali Geelani, Mirwaiz Umar Farooq and Yasin Malik.

 

  1. The case against granting provincial status to Gilgit-Baltistan rests on two main considerations:

 

First, it would be a breach of UN Security Council resolutions which state that the final disposition of Jammu and Kashmir would be made in accordance with the will of the people of the state as expressed through a plebiscite held under the auspices of the United Nations. There is a lot of merit in this argument because making Jammu and Kashmir – or any part of it – a province of Pakistan would be seen as amounting to making a “final disposition” of the state, something which the UN Security Council resolutions do not permit.

India has been in violation of the UN Security Council resolutions for more than six decades. If Pakistan were also now to act in breach of these resolutions by making Gilgit-Baltistan a province of Pakistan, India would be able to argue quite plausibly that the resolutions are dead. These resolutions form the bedrock of Pakistan’s case on Jammu and Kashmir and we must not take any step that could undermine their validity.

Second, Pakistan has treated Gilgit-Baltistan as a part of the disputed territory of Jammu and Kashmir. An important consideration for adopting this position was that the votes of the people of Gilgit-Baltistan, who are overwhelmingly Muslim and pro-Pakistan, should be counted in determining the outcome of a plebiscite on the final disposition of the entire state. It is for this reason that Pakistan did not accept the accession of Gilgit-Baltistan to Pakistan.

Even if a plebiscite is very unlikely in the foreseeable future, Pakistan must not take any step – such as making Gilgit-Baltistan a province while leaving the constitutional status of AJK untouched – that could lead to the exclusion of Gilgit-Baltistan from a state-wide plebiscite at a future date, however remote the possibility might be at present.

Also, the Pakistan constitution must treat both AJK and Gilgit-Baltistan as parts of the state of Jammu and Kashmir and must not make any distinction between the two with regard to their constitutional status. At the same time, AJK and Gilgit-Baltistan should have the freedom to structure their own political and administrative institutions as they consider appropriate.

  1. For the above reasons, it would be inadvisable to make Gilgit-Baltistan a province of Pakistan. At the same time, it is equally clear that it is no longer possible to continue the present arrangements for the governance of Gilgit-Baltistan that deny to the people of the territory the constitutional rights and autonomy enjoyed by the provinces of Pakistan.

 

  1. A constitutional arrangement has therefore to be devised which does not make Gilgit-Baltistan a province of Pakistan but still guarantees to the territory the constitutional rights and autonomy enjoyed by the provinces of Pakistan without compromising or diluting Pakistan’s commitment to the UN Security Council resolutions and without separating Gilgit-Baltistan from the disputed state of Jammu and Kashmir. Specifically, such an arrangement should comprise the following ingredients:

Recognition of Jammu and Kashmir as a single entity for purposes of UN Security Council resolutions: The state of Jammu and Kashmir should be treated as one entity which is temporarily divided by the Line of Control into (a) Indian-occupied Kashmir; and (b) liberated territory under Pakistan’s administration in accordance with UN Security Council resolutions. The liberated territory itself comprises two sub-units with separate administrative structures: (a) Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK); and Gilgit-Baltistan (GB).

Reaffirmation of UN Security Council resolutions: Pakistan’s commitment to respect and implement the UN Security Council resolutions on the right of self-determination of the Kashmiri should be expressly reaffirmed in the Constitution of Pakistan.

 Autonomy: Pending implementation of UN Security Council resolutions, the autonomy of the two sub-units under Pakistan’s administration – AJK and GB – should be guaranteed by the constitution of Pakistan, if so requested by their respective governments. As regards their internal administrative structures, the two sub-units should each have the choice of either (a) adopting their own constitution; or (b) opting for the provisions of the Pakistan constitution for provinces.

Representation in the Parliament of Pakistan: If they so request, both AJK and GB should be given representation in the Parliament of Pakistan and in the constitutional bodies for inter-provincial policy coordination such as the Council of Common Interests and the National Finance Commission, pending implementation of the UNSC resolutions.

Provisional character: It should be expressly stated in the constitution of Pakistan that constitutional measures adopted with regard to the autonomy and governance of AJK and GB and for the representation of the two territories in Parliament etc. are provisional in character, pending implementation of UNSC resolutions.

  1. The proposals made by the ARJK for enhanced autonomy and empowerment of AJK and GB, which have already been presented to you, are in conformity with the above principles. At the core of these proposals are amendments to the constitution of Pakistan as proposed at pp. 91-95 of the Association’s book (2nd edition, 2014) and reproduced in the attachment to this letter.
  1. The main elements of these proposals are summed up below:
  • The central stipulation of the UNSC resolutions that the final disposition of Jammu and Kashmir will be made in accordance with a plebiscite under UN auspices will be incorporated in Article 1 of the constitution, which defines the territories of Pakistan. In addition, a new Article will be added in Chapter 2 of the constitution (Principles of Policy), making it obligatory for the State to make “all necessary endeavours” for the implementation of the UNSC resolutions. These amendments will remove a huge lacuna in the Constitution.
  • Article 257 of the Constitution in its present form states that once Jammu and Kashmir accedes to Pakistan, its relationship with Pakistan will be determined in accordance with the wishes of the people of the state. But the constitution is completely silent on the relationship between the state and Pakistan pending its accession to Pakistan. This too is a huge gap in the constitution, especially considering that the accession of Kashmir to Pakistan is not likely in the foreseeable future. It is therefore essential that the constitution should make appropriate provisions for the interim period.
  • Instead of proposing that AJK and/or GB be made a province or provinces of Pakistan, the ARJK has proposed that pending implementation of the UNSC resolutions, certain provisions of the constitution of Pakistan should be made applicable to the two territories, with the concurrence of the respective government, and that for the purposes of those provisions, the two territories should be treated like provinces. The idea is that the provisions of Part V of the constitution (Relationship between Federation and Provinces) should be made applicable to them if they so desire. If that is done, they will automatically be guaranteed the same measure of autonomy as the provinces. The subjects on the federal list would stand transferred to the Federation, while AJK and/or GB would have full control over every other subject.
  • In addition, if AJK and/or GB so desire, Part IV of the constitution (Provinces) could also be made applicable to them. In that event, they will automatically have the same constitutional structure as the provinces of Pakistan – with a governor, chief minister and a legislative assembly. But if they choose not to opt for the application of Part IV, they could set up a constitutional edifice under their own constitution.
  • The constitution of Pakistan will be amended to provide seats to AJK and GB in the National Assembly and the Senate. Their share of seats in the National Assembly will be determined in accordance with their population. In the Senate, the entire state of Jammu and Kashmir should notionally have the same number of seats as the provinces of Pakistan. But since a part of the state is under Indian occupation and cannot choose its representatives to the Senate, the total share of AJK and GB should be half of that allocated to a province, with each sub-unit (AJK and GB) getting half of that half.
  • An amendment will also be made in the constitution of Pakistan to provide for their participation in the election of the President. But since a part of Jammu and Kashmir is under Indian occupation and since the liberated territories (AJK and GB) have two legislative assemblies, the weightage given to the votes cast by the members of each would be half of half (i.e. one-fourth) of that for the Provincial Assembly having the smallest number of seats.
  1. The net result of these proposals would essentially be to give AJK and GB all the rights, privileges and powers of provinces but without making them provinces. This would also fully safeguard the validity and sanctity of the UNSC resolutions and preserve the integrity of Jammu and Kashmir as a disputed territory to all parts of which those resolutions apply. In addition, enshrining the UNSC resolutions in the constitution of Pakistan would reinforce our position on the issue and protect our security interests.
  1. It is hoped that the proposals of the ARJK will be helpful to the Committee set up under your chairmanship to make recommendations on the future constitutional status of Gilgit-Baltistan and its relationship with Pakistan.
  1. ARJK will of course be willing to meet the members of your committee to have a further exchange of views on the subject.

With kind regards,

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Afzal Ali Shigri,
Vice Chairman
for the Chairman

Copy to:

  • Tariq Fatemi, Special Assistant to the Prime Minister, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Islamabad.\
  • Aizaz Ahmad Chaudhry, Secretary, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Islamabad.
  • Afrasiab, Additional Secretary (AP), Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Islamabad.
  • Mohammad Faisal, Director General (South Asia), Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Islamabad.

 

Afzal Ali Shigri