WHILE participating in the recent budget debate at the National Assembly, Bilawal Bhutto-Zardari argued in favour of Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan being given direct representation in the federal parliament. The PPP chairperson has advocated for provisional provincial status for GB, without compromising the country’s stated position on the Kashmir dispute in view of the UN resolutions.

Historically, both regions revolted against the Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir as British rule came to an end in the subcontinent. Following a bloody struggle, the people of GB and AJK gained control of their territory. GB wanted to accede to Pakistan while in AJK, local political leaders established a government under Sardar Mohammad Ibrahim Khan. The constitutional evolution of the two regions, however, followed different paths. Under the controversial Karachi Agreement of 1949, powers relating to GB’s administration were transferred to the government of Pakistan. AJK developed a political structure with its own elected assembly, prime minister and president, within a framework subject to federal oversight. GB, on the other hand, remained under direct bureaucratic administration from Islamabad. Governance was largely managed by junior civil servants who were often unfamiliar with local realities and aspirations. The region continued to be governed through colonial-era legal structures, compounded by the introduction of the Frontier Crimes Regulation (FCR) and the appointment of political agents on the model of the former tribal areas.

This prolonged denial of representative institutions and constitutional rights became a major source of grievance for GB’s residents who continue to seek a constitutional arrangement that guarantees democratic representation, self-governance and........

© Dawn