Rules Without Rights: The Paradox of Governance in Gilgit Baltistan

Ultimately, both Pakistan and India will have to hold a plebiscite in Kashmir if ever the issue is resolved under the aegis of the United Nations. But whether the people of Kashmir and Gilgit Baltistan will choose one of them or remain independent will be the question of that hour. The answer to this question lies in the treatment meted out to them by both states in the last seventy years. If this is set as a parameter, then the plebiscite result will become a blow to both nations because the people of Kashmir on both sides have been facing state aggression in one way or another since their occupation.

The people of IoK Kashmir have been under Indian atrocity since the bifurcation of British India. Hundreds of thousands of people have been killed so far by the Indian military in the occupied territory. The occupying force has continuously violated the fundamental rights of the people of the region under the pretext of maintaining the so-called states’ writ. The situation worsened after 5 August 2019 when New Delhi revoked Article 370 of the Indian constitution, which gave the region special status. Since then, the area has been under a severe lockdown.

The Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA), enacted in Gilgit Baltistan in 1997, has also usurped the basic rights of the people like FCR. The ATA was brought primarily to deal with terrorism in the country; later, it exacerbated the miseries of the innocent citizens of GB.

Thankfully, the Pakistani side of the occupied region has not faced such issues, but, the black laws have been at work here too. For decades, the state has brought such laws to keep its stronghold over the region and its populace. This has seemed to be the shortest resort for the state rather than fulfilling the political and economic demands of the people. This pretext has worked for the state but at the cost of regional autonomy and prosperity, which has engendered strong feelings of opposition in the people against the state.

The people of GB who struggled for their freedom on their own and forced Dogras to flee the region hoped for better days ahead. But, much to their utter consternation, they had to face black laws of a stringent nature immediately after the independence.

The first draconian law was the Frontier Crime Regulation (FCR), which came into force in the land of the mountains, in 1948, immediately after one year of independence. The FCR was a British-era law that remained in application until 1947. After independence, it was re-implemented in FATA and GB by the government of Pakistan. This law gave unbridled impunity to the political agent who, at that time, controlled all the affairs of GB (formerly Northern Areas). The political agent (PI), who used to be a bureaucrat or an army official, had the power to detain people without a clear charge against them. The people were given no right to appeal, and their fate was largely at the mercy of the agent. Sometimes, the agent would punish the whole community for the crimes of individuals. This law was a sheer violation of human rights, namely the right to political representation, judicial appeal, and freedom from collective punishment.

The FCR succeeded in keeping a strong grip over the region through bureaucracy but lost people’s trust in the state at the same time. The people of GB rejected it and demanded its annulment; however, the state authorities haven’t shown any amicable response; consequently, the poor souls had to bear this law until 1973, when it was finally lifted.

The Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA), enacted in Gilgit Baltistan in 1997, has also usurped the basic rights of the people like FCR. The ATA was brought primarily to deal with terrorism in the country; later, it exacerbated the miseries of the innocent citizens of GB. More specifically, the enforcement of the fourth schedule has trampled the lives of the people. Under this law, so far, many religious leaders, politicians, civil society members, and other human rights activists have been detained on charges of terrorism. It has become a tailor-made instrument for the state to categorize anyone as a terrorist in the region. The bureaucracy of the region is using this act to silence dissenting voices in the region.

The definition of terrorism under this law is itself ambiguous; subsequently, those who do not commit terrorist acts also have to face it. Paragraph six of the article states “use or threat of action” as an act of terrorism, but the legislators of the act failed to clarify what sorts of threat of action. From 1998 to 2018, an analysis of 40 cases decided by the Supreme Court shows that using rhetoric against the government and demanding constitutional rights did not fall within the definition of terrorism; they were all based on presumptions and speculations. This makes it exigent to oversee the act altogether again. Otherwise, it will devour the political rights of the people of the region in no time.

It is gospel truth that Gilgit Baltistan is a terrorist-free region where no terrorist outfit is operating. According to the act, people having links to proscribed organizations can be put under the fourth schedule; making the application of the act in the region ambiguous.

Many prominent leaders of GB have faced this draconian law so far. In 2012, Baba Jan, a prominent political activist from Hunza, was detained under the ATA and kept incarcerated for nine years. Another leader who faced cases of terrorism was Haider Shah Rizvi, a leader of the Balawaristan National Front, who was an ardent advocate of the political and economic rights of GB. He remained in prison on several occasions and more than 50 cases had been registered against him, one of which was a treason case. Several other people, especially the leaders from the Awami Action Committee, have recurrently been on the list. By now, more than 31 individuals from GB are on the fourth schedule, according to the report provided by the Home and Prisons Department of GB; ironically, some incumbent and former members of the legislative assembly of GB are among them.

It is gospel truth that Gilgit Baltistan is a terrorist-free region where no terrorist outfit is operating. According to the act, people having links to proscribed organizations can be put under the fourth schedule; making the application of the act in the region ambiguous. Because of this, many organizations and people, like the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP), the Asian Human Rights Commission, and lawyers across the country, have appealed to the government to reconsider the enactment of the law in the region.

Keeping the fragility of the region in sight, it is incumbent upon the state to withdraw such laws that instill hatred into the hearts of the people against the state. The state’s oblivion towards the people of Baluchistan for decades has inculcated a sense of alienation in them, and dealing with it has now become a herculean task for the state. Therefore, the state has to shun its apathetic behavior and consider the fragility and vulnerability of its parts before bringing such laws into action there.

In short, terrorism laws should be made according to the political and existing law and order situation of a region. A law favorable to one region may be unpropitious to another. If such peculiar laws are implemented unmindfully, then the lives of the people will pass trying to know their actual crime, like Joseph K. in Kafka’s novel “The Trial.” After all, a region cannot afford to succumb to Kafkaesque absurdism in reality.