Fifth Province,
Senge
By Kunwar Khuldune Shahid 17 MARCH
2016
On January 7, the
spokesperson for the chief minister of Gilgit-Baltistan (GB), Hafiz Hafeez ur
Rehman, told the media that, “a high level committee formed by the prime
minister is working on [giving GB constitutional status].”
On January 9, the Azad Jammu Kashmir
(AJK) state government decided to lodge a protest against attempts to convert
GB into a province. The resolution was tabled in the Legislative Assembly on
January 12.
Chaudhry Latif Akber, Minister for
Finance, Planning & Development, maintains that Gilgit-Baltistan is part
and parcel of the divided and disputed state of Jammu & Kashmir. “Any
attempt to merge GB into Pakistan could fatally damage our stand vis-a-vis UN
resolutions, which recognise the Kashmiris’ right of self-determination,” he
says. “GB is a constitutional part of the Jammu & Kashmir state. We won’t
let it be divided at any cost.”
According to sources, the move to
grant GB provincial status comes amidst Chinese pressure, with the
China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) passing through what remains a disputed
territory. “China obviously isn’t comfortable spending $46.2 billion – its
largest ever overseas investment – on a project that runs through an area that
is claimed by both India and Pakistan,” says a government official. “However,
what could become problematic is the fact that giving GB provincial status in
effect means Pakistan backing out from its stance on a plebiscite in all of
Kashmir. Not only would this jeopardise Pakistan’s position on Kashmir, it
would also alienate the leadership in Indian-administered Kashmir, who would
feel betrayed,” he adds.
On January 13, Hurriyat leader Syed
Ali Shah Geelani released a statement stating that giving GB constitutional
status amounts to ‘betraying Kashmiris.’
“There is no constitutional or moral
justification for taking any decision over any part of this territory without
the consent of its people and it is also a clear violation of the UN
resolutions on Kashmir,” he said. “No such action will be acceptable to the
Kashmiri people. Hurriyat is not against the economic development and
prosperity of the South-Asian region but creating trade routes at the cost of
the aspirations and sacrifices of Kashmiri nation is unjust and
unkind.”
On January 27, Geelani wrote a letter
to Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif opposing the move. “The merger of
Gilgit-Baltistan in Pakistan will prove a disaster for the disputed nature of
Jammu and Kashmir and this act will impact the disputed status of this region,”
Geelani wrote. “CPEC will definitely boost the economic condition of this
region but merging it into Pakistan for this purpose is not necessary.”
On February 1, the
GB Assembly’s 19-member delegation met Senator Mushahid Hussain,Chairman of
Parliamentary Committee on the CPEC. The assembly members represented both the
ruling and opposition parties. In the meeting that lasted over two hours,
Hussain reiterated the importance of GB as CPEC’s gateway, saying that the
region also links Pakistan to the Central Asian states and will be a major
beneficiary of the benefits of the economic corridor. Sources privy to the meeting
reveal that the GB delegation was not convinced.
On February 18, the Deputy Commissioner of
Diamer announced that the Pakistan Army is making its headquarters in Thak Das
to provide security installations for the CPEC. “The army will soon
take over the land formally and start work immediately so it can assume
responsibilities,” he said.
The president of the Washington-based
Institute for Gilgit-Baltistan Studies, Senge Hasnan Sering, says the CPEC
cannot succeed without taking the people of GB on board. “Pakistan and China
need the cooperation and commitment of the local community for CPEC’s viability
and security,” he believes.
“Recently Senator Mushahid Hussain
Syed stated that GB is intended only as a conduit for the economic and
industrial zones to be established further south in Pakistan. This suggests
that CPEC serves the strategic interests of China and Pakistan, while excluding
local communities in the same fashion as the Karakoram Highway (KH).
“The KH allows a useful historical
reference for this approach and its impact on GB. Thirty-seven years after
China constructed KH, GB retains the lowest trade ranking of Xinjiang’s six
neighbors. The Beijing-Islamabad trade via KH is negligible.”
Sering believes that Pakistan has
failed to leverage the KH to export GB’s products to China andCentral Asia.
“According to the BBC, over 80 per
cent of Gilgit’s retail outlets carrying Chinese goods are owned or
operated by non-locals. Simultaneously, the KH contributed greatly to sharp
demographic shifts, which threaten cultural identity. Further, the KH enables
movement of weapons, illicit drugs, militants and extremist terrorists,
creating greater insecurity and regional instability.
“By building a large infrastructure
project without inclusivity, China and Pakistan failed to fully realise the
KH’s potential and, instead, built a road – with mixed results. Without a
meaningful partnership, the CPEC becomes like the KH, which looks great on
paper but in reality, is a carcass of a dusty road prone to routine blockages.”
Sering continues: “Like KH, the CPEC
is a project of high regional significance. It presents an excellent
opportunity for China and Pakistan to demonstrate commitment to global
standards of democracy and governance. However, GB’s disputed status and
India’s claim over the region is also integral to the question at
hand. Given the dispute, China and Pakistan resist local partnerships,
exacerbating the poverty and security issues, which are obstacles to progress.
I think that CPEC will fail to connect vision to reality or flourish in the
absence of a truly robust constitutional and autonomous foundation within
GB.”
Sering says that if China’s efforts
in GB are viewed as a threat to its people, culture, natural resources and
environment, it is a serious setback for the entire region.
“A truly vibrant corridor must
incorporate local manufacturing and jobs. The CPEC has the potential to
catalyse accelerated commerce of local goods and ideas while
promoting local culture as a means of social stability and tourism. This vision
requires a well-regulated system in which Pakistan and China partner with local
communities and treat them as equals; build human capital, and give the locals
due share in decision-making. As a consequence of GB’s current disputed status
and the absence of any constitutional guarantees, its people are skeptical
about realising CPEC’s benefits. I urge Pakistan to grant GB a constitution of
its own, and demonstrate its commitment to democracy and the rule of law.”
Sering says Pakistan’s claim on
AJK or GB will be recognised legally only after Kashmiris participate in the
UN-led plebiscite and vote to join Pakistan. “Absorbing GB would be viewed as a
unilateral annexation by Pakistan. By doing so, Pakistan sidesteps the UN
process, clearing the path for India to do the same,” he says.
“One can utilise the Shimla
Agreements to attempt to settle GB bilaterally but that would, again, come at
the expense of Indian-administered Kashmir. Any unilateral move by Pakistan
will be temporary in nature. The issue involves multiple actors and any one-way conversation with
itself is not going to bring long term strategic dividends for Pakistan or GB.
“A unilateral annexation of GB,
granting it constitutional rights, would provide momentary relief to locals
from the current insecurity and uncertainty but the long-term ambiguity will
continue to plague the region until all parties, including India, arrive at an
internationally-recognised agreement.
“Till a final resolution, Pakistan
must grant GB its own constitution thus reinvigorating the UN process. Only
then should projects such as CPEC continue, which recognise GB as an equal
partner.”
But how would the people of GB be
affected should it be accorded provincial status?
“If Pakistan were to give GB a
constitutional status, it would have to merge with KP since GB’s 1.4 million
estimated population does not warrant a free-standing province,” Sering
believes. “Alternatively, a new province could emerge, comprising GB, Hazara,
Chitral, Swat and Muzaffarabad divisions. In either scenario, the people of GB
will be subsumed, and vying for identity and resource ownership.”
“Granting a constitutional or
provincial status will not satisfy the people of GB since their socio-economic
rights and cultural identities would be compromised to ensure the ‘greater
national interest’ – a euphemism for the ruling class. The people of GB do
realise that the majority of people living under the constitution, such as
those in Balochistan and FATA, are not accorded rights over their resources.
Further, sister region AJK’s failure to secure royalty from Mangla Dam over the
previous four decades does not inspire confidence in GB.
Sering believes Pakistan would have
to win over GB hearts for a lasting solution.
“Temporary relief from current
uncertainties will lead GB into permanent insecurities, and the people of GB
will continue to resist if a legal status leads to further subjugation. I
believe winning the hearts and minds of the people of GB is critical for lasting
relations with Pakistan. The CPEC process is a critical window in which to
herald this necessary step.”
No comments:
Post a Comment