Sakib Berjees<\/p>\n
The political process of Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK) and Gilgit-Baltistan (GB) has nothing to do with institutionally democratic evolution but with managed democracy. The fate of these territories remains constitutionally unsettled because of the Kashmir dispute. Political interference has further marginalised local legitimacy rather than strengthening regional cohesion. Since 1990, many governments in Islamabad have changed, but the governing approach and logic used ain these territories have continued to be largely intact. For a persistent model of control, the elements of policy vision, leadership continuity, and institutional depth have been compromised, thus treating these regions less as self-determining territories and more as administratively suitable extensions of the federal government of Pakistan.
\nA clear pattern since the 1990s has asserted itself, where the political party that forms government in Islamabad almost invariably goes on to assume power in Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan. This reflects the structural dominance of the federal government of Pakistan that has influence over finances, development budget, senior administrative and judicial appointments, and informal political alliances. Moreover, the federal government\u2019s Ministry of Kashmir Affairs and Gilgit-Baltistan also exercises significant authority in these territories. Consequently, the democratic processes in these regions do not truly reflect the will of the local people but the will of the federal government.
\nThe constitutional frameworks of these territories reflect this imbalance. The Interim Constitution Act of 1974 governs Azad Jammu and Kashmir. It was adopted and amended 14 times to date, as a provisional parliamentary system for AJK. It defines governance for the \u201cliberated territories\u201d, but the ultimate authority in matters of defence, foreign affairs, and overall budgetary control rests with Islamabad. The federal government runs the AJK through the Kashmir Council, and it is chaired by the Prime Minister of Pakistan. In 2018, many responsibilities were transferred back to the legislative assembly while retaining strategic supervision in federal hands.
\nThe administered Kashmir area is around 13,297 sq.km, it has 3 divisions and 10 districts. The population of 4.5 million has a population growth rate of 2.5 per cent, with 88 per cent of people living in rural areas, while 12 per cent are settled in urban areas. Although the literacy rate is around 80 per cent, only 2.2 per cent are graduates. Fiscal year 2025-26, the AJK government presented a Budget of Rs . 310 billion with Rs. 49 billion development expenditure and Rs. 261 billion non-development (recurring) expenditure. Tax collection was around Rs 70 billion, and the rest was federal grants. Politics is mostly concerned with the caste system, as people have a strong conviction in their caste identity in Kashmir.
\nBoth regions are facing real consequences because of the uncertainties in the constitutional order regarding their status. The 2025 political unrest in Azad Kashmir is blatantly visible. We have witnessed four Prime Ministers in AJK replacing each other in the last four years, while also being part of each other\u2019s cabinets since the 2021 general election. The replacement was not through electoral verdicts but by political engineering involving both the federal government and the establishment. There is no reform, no initiative, no public governance and no economic competence at all.
\nThis situation has compromised and tarnished the idea of political legacy and public service in Azad Kashmir. There was a time when AJK leadership had integrity as their top priority, i.e., Sardar Abdul Qayyum Khan, Sardar Sikandar Hayat, Sahabzada Ishaaq Zafar, and later Raja Farooq Haider, who governed with discernible political priorities and some degree of local identity. Today, the situation is deplorable as the AJK leadership is interchangeable, the government has lost public trust, and both the system and people feel exhausted from the current situation.
\nThe situation in Gilgit-Baltistan is not much different from that in Azad Kashmir. Its status is even more confusing, as it is neither a province nor an autonomous region in the constitutional sense. The Empowerment and Self-Governance Order of 2009 created a GB legislative assembly and GB Council, but did not give it a full constitutional right, the same as Pakistan\u2019s other provinces. The constitution of Pakistan is not applicable to the GB territory, i.e., meaning its courts, assembly, and legal guarantees lack the constitutional authority that exists in Pakistan.
\nGilgit Baltistan area is around 72,496 sq.km, with 3 divisions and 14 districts. The population is around 1.8 million, with a growth rate of 2.8 per cent, where 83 per cent of people live in rural areas, while 17 per cent are settled in urban areas. Literacy rate is around 74 per cent. Fiscal year 2025-26, the GB government presented a Budget of Rs. 148 billion with Rs 37 billion development expenditure and Rs 88 billion non-development expenditure, while tax collection was under Rs 5 billion. GB is ethnically, linguistically and sectarian diverse, and this is one of the defining social features that influence its politics and cultural character.
\nGilgit Baltistan has tremendous tourism potential and significant opportunities for hydropower projects. Potential for tourism speaks for itself in GB. It has 5 of the world\u2019s 14 mountains above 8000 meters, i.e., K2, the world\u2019s second-highest, Nanga Parbat, G1, G2 and Broad Peak. Moreover, 160 peaks above 7000 meters and 700 mountains above 6000 meters. GB has the largest extensive 3,500 glaciers outside the poles, where Baltoro, Hispar and Biafo are the longest expansive Glaciers in the world. Gilgit Baltistan has actual wonders of the world.
\nAnother important aspect: China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) projects during the 2013-18 period, including road connectivity and infrastructure enhancements, brought benefits but were not institutionalised. The CPEC initiative is also suffering setbacks. The local populations feel marginalised as they too deserve prosperity and progress in the region, but the attitude towards politics and governance has converted this land of opportunity into an administrative brittleness and stalled development.
\nThe role of the GOP should have been the provision of a coordination and facilitation process, but unfortunately, it has evolved into a controlling authority. Budgetary dependence remains critical; the majority of regional spending is financed through federal grants. When most of the regional legislative initiatives and administrative authority are handled through Islamabad, then how can we expect the local assemblies with limited authority to deliver or legislate independently?
\nDevolution of power is a very important concept in any functional democracy. When you empower the institutions and people, the system becomes progressive. Countries have integrated their peripheral regions, although deeply controversial in other respects, proving that the clear constitutional status and fiscal devolution are the only way forward. Constitutional recognition of local rights brings political stability and governance continuity; this is exactly what is absent in Pakistan-administered territories.
\nSuccessful accommodation of autonomous and disputed regions rests on three pillars: stable political rules, leadership renewal, and local control over resources. We have observed these practices from Indonesia (Aceh) to Italy (South Tyrol). Without devolution of power and empowerment of local institutions, these territories have no future. Establishing standards for leadership continuity and creating pathways for second and third-tier leadership is not a surrender but an investment in institutional continuity rather than personalities.
\nThe Kashmiri Diaspora, especially in the United Kingdom, is a valuable source of economic and intellectual capital. Remittances, support for local campaigns, and maintaining cultural ties back home are significant contributions, and certainly commendable. A structured approach for the Diaspora investment and their engagement in the oversight of mega-projects will certainly transform their emotional attachment into sustainable development. This can only be possible through credible institutions, not ad hoc ministerial patronage.
\nPresently, there is a trust deficit in both the AJK and GB governments. This is because their accountability is weak, authority is asymmetrical, and democratic rhetoric and process have repeatedly been disconnected from devolved power. People in AJK and GB are not seeking an abrupt constitutional upheaval, nor are they demanding any deflection from Pakistan\u2019s principled stance on the Kashmir dispute. They are demanding engagements and a consensus-based approach rather than a control-obsessed process confrontations.
\nWe need to empower the regional governments, and the federal government must assist them in setting up their local taxation authority, transparent budgeting, and an independent public service commission. Fiscal autonomy must be given to these regional governments, and this will bring political maturity. Development planning and infrastructure must be decentralised to elected assemblies. Political parties must invest and facilitate in cultivating leadership in these regions rather than importing decisions from Islamabad, Karachi or Lahore.
\nKashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan are not just administrative territories; they have historic significance and heritage. The people have resilience and aspiration. Pakistan must incorporate their historic significance and moral centrality into its national narrative. For this, we need to work with them beyond managed outcomes and towards genuine democratic confidence. Empowerment by decentralisation of power, investment in human capital, and institutional capacity building are not concessions but will forge the sustainable foundations of unity. Anything less will again reproduce another generation of instability, disappointment, and squandered potential.<\/p>\n
The writer is a political economist and policy strategist shaping discourse on principled leadership, economic sovereignty, and long-term governance.<\/p>\n
Courtesy<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Sakib Berjees The political process of Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK) and Gilgit-Baltistan (GB) has nothing to do with institutionally democratic evolution but with managed democracy. The fate of these territories remains constitutionally unsettled because of the Kashmir dispute. Political interference has further marginalised local legitimacy rather than strengthening regional cohesion. Since 1990, many governments […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[10],"tags":[13803],"class_list":{"0":"post-524907","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-article","7":"tag-sakib-berjees"},"yoast_head":"\n