GB: politics of ambiguity
THE people of Gilgit-Baltistan joined Pakistan at the time of independence after liberating the region from Dogra rule. It was a unanimous aspiration to become part of the Muslim state. Assuming the relationship would be formalised through constitutional inclusion and political empowerment, GB’s people aligned themselves with mainstream Pakistani political parties, unlike Azad Kashmir, where indigenous political parties continued to play a significant role. Unfortunately, instead of the evolution of a locally rooted political architecture or democratic compact specific to GB, governance came to be dominated by the PML-N, PPP and PTI, who viewed GB through the lens of national power politics, strategic utility, electoral expansion, patronage and resource control, rather than genuine political empowerment. Consequently, while there are elected governments, there’s no meaningful self-governance. The first problem is the absence of a consistent ideological commitment by these parties to resolving GB’s constitutional status. Promises of autonomy, reforms and provisional provincial status are repeatedly made during elections, but not one party has delivered on their pledge when in federal power. The unresolved constitutional ambiguity serves the interests of centralised authority because it allows decisive control without assuming full constitutional obligations. A second problem is the import of a confrontational mainland political culture into a socially sensitive and geographically isolated mountain society. Politics has become polarised around loyalties to party leadership in Islamabad. Local leadership often emerges not through grassroots struggle or public legitimacy, but patronage networks, loyalty to party centres and access to federal power. This weakens local institutions and stymies independent political consensus. The PPP introduced the 2009 Gilgit-Baltistan Empowerment and Self-Governance Order, which created the current political structure. However, while the order established elected institutions, overriding authority remained concentrated within federally controlled structures. The PML-N focused on infrastructure and connectivity projects, but made little attempt at meaningful local empowerment. The party was reluctant even to take ownership of the Sartaj Aziz Committee’s report because it recommended full constitutional rights for GB. (It also provided the intellectual basis for the Supreme Court’s landmark 2019 judgement.) Instead, the PML-N’s 2018 order diluted the spirit of the report and even rolled back several powers granted under the PPP’s 2009 framework. People in Gilgit-Baltistan take part in elections and form governments, but the real levers of power are not in their hands. The PTI raised expectations by discussing provisional provincial status and constitutional reforms. However, when proposals concerning fuller constitutional status were presented, the party effectively ensured the continuation of the restrictive 2018 governance framework. All three parties converge on several core goals: maintaining political influence through patronage networks; using local elites dependent on federal authority; preserving centralised control over strategic geography and resources; avoiding a final constitutional settlement; expanding bureaucratic structures that cultivate political loyalties. The result is a political culture in which elections become contests for access to state patronage rather than serious debates on constitutional rights, fiscal autonomy, institutional reform, environmental sustainability, or long-term development. Another major impediment is the fragmentation of local political consciousness. Federal parties often exploit regional, sectarian, clan-based and constituency-level divisions for electoral advantage. The resulting divisions weaken the possibility of a unified political position capable of negotiating collective rights. Frequent shifts in political loyalty have normalised a culture in which the political process resembles an auction for legislative support. The result is a paradoxical system. People participate in elections, elect representatives and form governments, yet the real levers of power remain externalised. The assembly administers limited local matters, while strategic decisions, constitutional questions, resource frameworks and fiscal dependency are controlled from elsewhere. Roads, contracts, bureaucratic appointments and symbolic projects dominate political discourse, while deeper questions of political dignity, resource ownership, etc, remain unresolved. GB’s long-term challenge is to develop an indigenous political vision capable of transcending externally driven party competition. Such a vision must articulate demands for accountable governance, constitutional clarity, economic justice and genuine participation in decision-making. Ultimately, GB’s tragedy lies not merely in flawed governance, but also in the normalisation of a political charade. Every five years, elections are held under a constitutionally undefined framework that changes governments without altering the actual structure of power. The process is at its core a ritualistic transfer of authority among federally controlled political actors while fundamental questions of constitutional status, political rights, institutional accountability, etc, remain unresolved. This ambiguity facilitates elite capture through a flawed political system that enables control over local resources without meaningful accountability. Public resources continue to be consumed by expanding bureaucratic structures, patronage networks and non-development expenditures. More troubling is the ill-defined governance structure in which critical decisions, including appointments to senior judicial and institutional positions, are made through opaque processes. Such a system effectively guarantees immunity for unaccountable decision-makers, while ordinary citizens continue to bear the burden of weak institutions, unemployment, and political uncertainty. This has reduced Sunday’s election to an exercise in futility. Yet beneath this stagnant order, a transformation is taking place. A new generation is emerging in GB — educated, technologically connected, politically conscious and unwilling to accept symbolic representation in place of genuine rights and participation. This rising Gen Z, perhaps the most educated and politically aware generation in GB, may ultimately challenge the cycle of constitutional ambiguity and political misgovernance. No political structure built upon perpetual ambiguity, exclusion and managed dependency can endure indefinitely. If meaningful constitutional reform, institutional accountability, and genuine empowerment are delayed further, we will witness not merely political dissatisfaction, but also a far more assertive and organised demand for full meaningful constitutional integration with Pakistan, irrespective of competing political and strategic considerations. The writer, a former IGP Sindh, belongs to Gilgit-Baltistan. Published in Dawn, June 7th, 2026