Gilgit
Baltistan and Pakistani game plan.
Dr
Shabir Choudhry 20 January 2019
Imperial designs of Pakistani rulers are more apparent now
than ever before. Those who still don’t understand the game plan of Islamabad
are either too naïve, or are puppets and collaborators. In view of many
nationalists of Jammu and Kashmir, these people are the main obstacle to our
struggle for unification and independence.
It is sad that, Pakistani rulers who are unable to
effectively control and govern their own territory is so obsessed with
occupying the territory of Jammu and Kashmir which does not belong to Pakistan.
They use tools of 5th generation war and
religion to fool people, and advance their agenda in Gilgit Baltistan, so
called Azad Kashmir and in Jammu and Kashmir Valley, Jammu and Ladakh.
For all practical purposes, they have occupied Gilgit
Baltistan and so-called Azad Kashmir; and are actively working hard to destabilise
and occupy the territory of Jammu and Kashmir State that is not under their
control.
With help of compliant judiciary, the establishment of
Pakistan has further strengthened their hold on Gilgit Baltistan. Saqib Nisar,
who in view of many Pakistani lawyers was the worst Chief Justice of Pakistan,
on his last day gave a controversial verdict on Gilgit Baltistan.
In order to strengthen their hold, Pakistan promulgated the Gilgit-Baltistan
Empowerment and Self Governance Order, 2009, which was challenged by Dr Ghulam
Abbas, a local citizen of Gilgit Baltistan. A larger bench consisting of seven
Supreme Court Judges ruled in favour of the Ordinance and extended Supreme
Court’s jurisdiction to disputed areas of Gilgit Baltistan.
Response of India
Before
presenting response of the local people, I would like to point out that India,
as a party to the dispute, lodged a strong protest against this decision; and reiterated
its claim that the entire State of Jammu and Kashmir is “an
integral part of India". The Ministry of External Affairs statement
further said:
“Pakistan government or
judiciary have no locus standi on territories illegally and forcibly occupied
by it. Any action to alter the status of these occupied territories by
Pakistan has no legal basis whatsoever".
India rejected Pakistan’s
continued attempts to bring material change in these "occupied territories and
to camouflage grave human rights exploitation and sufferings of the people
living there".
Response of the local leaders
Gilgit Baltistan All Parties Conference in its special
meeting held to formulate an agreed response, unanimously rejected Pakistan’s
Supreme Court decision; and vowed to start a campaign for the rights of people
of Gilgit Baltistan. Salient points of the Gilgit Baltistan APC statement are
as follows:
1. Pakistan
should establish a local authority, as envisaged in the UN Commission for India
and Pakistan’s Resolution, and all powers, apart from Defence, Foreign Affairs
and Communication, must be vested in the Gilgit Baltistan Assembly;
2. State
Subject Ordinance must be re-established in this disputed territory;
3. Judicial
system for Gilgit Baltistan should be similar to that of Azad Kashmir, where
they have their own Supreme Court;
4. Pakistan
should stop sending Pakistani bureaucrats to rule Gilgit Baltistan;
5. Pakistan
must end unfair and cruel laws like Schedule 4 and Anti-Terrorism Act to
silence voices of the local people.
A view of Azad Kashmiri nationalist leader
Zubair
Ansari, Senior Vice Chairman of Kashmir National Party had very serious
reservations on this decision. In his written statement he said:
Pakistani
Supreme Court’s decision on Gilgit Baltistan is condemnable, and a black law. In
his view, the following factors contributed in not making Gilgit Baltistan a
province of Pakistan.
1. Article 1 of
constitution of Pakistan clearly define Pakistan’s territory, and areas of
Gilgit Baltistan and Azad Kashmir are not constitutional part of Pakistan.
Article 257 further clarifies the position of these areas which are part of
Princely State of Jammu and Kashmir; and are not legal part of Pakistan.
2. Apart from that since
1947, in all international institutions, including the United Nations, Pakistan
has repeatedly affirmed that these areas are not constitutional part of Pakistan.
3. Because of the above, Pakistan
could not constitutionally make Gilgit Baltistan part of Pakistan, as that was
a constitutional matter, and required two third majority in the Pakistani
Parliament. Also, that move had international ramifications, and Pakistan is
not prepared for this.
4. Furthermore, in case of
making Gilgit Baltistan a province, Pakistan needed to have a similar legal,
economic and administrative infrastructure which exists in other provinces; and
expenses of that alone could be in tens of billions, and the fragile Pakistani
economy cannot tolerate this.
5. Also, Pakistan had to
give same representation to Gilgit Baltistan in the Pakistani Parliament. Representation
in the National Assembly is based on population, whereas representation in the Senate
is same for all the provinces. This also required a constitutional amendment;
and it is very unlikely that this could have passed.
6. Additionally, as a
province, Gilgit Baltistan would have obtained a large sum of money in the NFC
award. Pakistani economy is in shambles, and most likely this large amount – in
billions - would have come by reducing the award/budget of the other provinces.
7. FATA, legally part of
Pakistan, needs additional funds for its development. No province of Pakistan
agreed for the reduction of 3% in their budget to help FATA, as they are also
starved for funds.
8. Gilgit Baltistan is impoverished
territory, and is far behind other Pakistani provinces. By making Gilgit
Baltistan a province, Pakistan had to divert massive funds for its development,
and funds are not available in Pakistan. That meant reducing up to 25% of
budget of the other provinces; and there was absolutely no chance that the
Pakistani provinces would have agreed to this.
9. Apart from that, up to now
they have treated people of Gilgit Baltistan as a second-class citizens. How
could Pakistani elite and politicians accept leaders of Gilgit Baltistan as
equals in the Pakistani institutions?
10.
Baba Rehmta,
nick name for Saqib Nisar, Chief Justice of Pakistan, shrewdly solved the
problem for Pakistan, its institutions and the establishment. He extended
Supreme Court jurisdiction to Gilgit Baltistan; and strengthened Pakistani hold
on these areas without spending a penny, and without hurting pride and ego of
Pakistani politicians and the establishment.
11.
Baba Rehmta knows very well, that other powerful
institutions of his country are already controlling every aspect of social,
political and economic life in Gilgit Baltistan, so why spend more money when
they are in total control and attaining all the benefits they want.
12.
Some fools or collaborators are expressing happiness
over this black law, but in my view, more problems and hardship is coming our
way.
What other nationalists leaders say
Commenting
on these collaborators, Sadiq Subhani, former President of Jammu Kashmir
National Awami Party (Britain) in a social media post said:
The
leadership that accepts and praise decision of non-Jammu and Kashmir Supreme
Court to change disputed nature of any part of Jammu and Kashmir State is a
collaborator of imperialists. These people are not helping the Kashmir dispute,
their hidden agenda is accession with another state.
Amjad
Yousaf, President of Europe Zone of United
Kashmir Peoples National Party said:
No
institution of Pakistan has any right to change constitutional and legal status
of Jammu and Kashmir. Gilgit Baltistan is constitutional part of the former
Princely State of Jammu and Kashmir; and any move to change that will be
resisted.
All
those who are expressing happiness or satisfaction on the decision of the
Pakistani Supreme Court are viewed as collaborators. No loyal son of soil can
express happiness on attempts of imperialist powers to divide our motherland.
Writer is a renowned
writer and author of many books. He is also President Foreign Affairs Committee
of UKPNP; and Chairman South Asia Watch, London.
No comments:
Post a Comment