By Ravinder Kaul
“Pakistan occupied Kashmir is ours”, when Prime Minister Narendra Modi asserted at a meeting of all major political parties in New Delhi on August 12 and followed it up with his Independence Day speech from the ramparts of Red Fort in which he said, “For the past few days the people of Baluchistan, Gilgit, the people of Pakistan occupied Kashmir have heartily thanked me…..these people acknowledge the Prime Minister of India, they honour him, so it is an honour of my 125 crore countrymen and that is why, owing to the feeling of this honour, I want to heartily thank the people of Baluchistan, the people of Gilgit, the people of Pakistan occupied Kashmir for their expression of thankfulness”, he gave a clear indication of the direction that his government intends to take in dealing with the direct involvement of Pakistan in providing men and material and funding terrorism and separatism in Kashmir through State and Non State actors. While his extending of moral support to the people of Balochistan in their struggle against the tyrannical Pakistani regime has been welcomed as a long overdue and sound tactical position, it is the territory of Pak occupied Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan, where India’s legal, legitimate and strategic interests lie.
After all these years, and despite a Resolution to this effect, unanimously adopted by both houses of the Indian Parliament in 1994, it is only now that India has given a clear indication that it intends to focus on asserting its rights over PoK and Gilgit-Baltistan and exposing the manner in which Pakistan has, in complete disregard to UN Resolutions, gifted away a sizable portion of PoK to China, amalgamated Gilgit-Baltistan, a part of the erstwhile State of Jammu and Kashmir, into Pakistan in the name and style of Northern Areas (later again renamed Gilgit-Baltistan in 2009) and the manner in which Pakistan has settled thousands of Punjabis, Afghans and others in PoK, in violation of the State Subject laws. Hence, it is imperative that the people of India, particularly the policy makers, the politicians of all hues, the bureaucrats, understand as to what has been happening in these Pak occupied territories over the past 70 years. Unfortunately, there has been a severe shortage of literature on this subject and the Indian newspapers and television channels also do not give any informed coverage to the happenings in these areas.
Aptly time-lined to the present scenario, an excellent book that gives extensive coverage to almost all aspects of life, culture and politics in PoK and Gilgit-Baltistan is now available in the public domain. Titled ‘The Other Kashmir – Society, Culture and Politics in the Karakoram Himalayas’ has been published by the Institute for Defence Studies & Analyses and Edited by Prof. K.Warikoo, Professor of Central Asian Studies, School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi. Prof Warikoo has authored three chapters titled ‘Karakoram Himalayas and Central Asia: The Buddhist Connection’, ‘The Making of a Frontier: The Relationship between Kashmir and its Frontier Territories’ and ‘Geo-Strategic Importance of Gilgit-Baltistan’, in this book of monumental significance.
The invaluable relevance of the book can be gauged from the chapter titled ‘The Making of a Frontier’ authored by Prof. Warikoo in which, after quoting from numerous authentic sources and documents, he concludes, “The historical evidence and contemporary records….show that Skardu, Gilgit, Hunza, Nagar, Chilas, Astor, Gupis, Kuh-Ghizar, Punial, Ishkoman, Yasin, Darel, and Tangir etc. were part of the territories of Jammu and Kashmir State till 1947. Whereas the Kashmir government exercised direct authority over Gilgit, Bunji and Astor, which were part of Gilgit Wazarat till 1947, Skardu, Rondu, Shigar, Tolti, Khaplu, etc. were part of a Tehsil in the Ladakh district. However, the chiefships of Hunza, Nagar and Governorships of Punial, Yasin, Chilas, Kuh-Ghizar, Ishkoman and the tribal territories of Darel, Tangir, Thor, Kandia, Jalkot, Shatian, Harban, etc. were feudatories of the Kashmir Durbar, which received tribute from them but were allowed internal autonomy in their local administration.
When the British left the sub-continent in August 1947, the area of the Gilgit Agency reverted back to Maharaja’s control. Maharaja Hari Singh appointed Brigadier Ghansara Singh as the new Wazir-i-Wazarat (Governor) of Gilgit, who assumed charge on 31 July 1947. On 1 August 1947 illuminations in the entire Jammu and Kashmir State celebrated the resumption of the civil and military administration of Gilgit. However, Major W.A.Brown, the British Commander of Gilgit Scouts, organised and led a revolt of the Gilgit Scouts and arrested Brigadier Ghansara Singh…..On 4 November 1947, Brown hoisted the Pakistani flag at Gilgit and handed over the area to Pakistan, which appointed its own Political Agent. Though Indian forces, supported by the people of Kashmir led by Sheikh Abdullah, the popular leader of National Conference, pushed back Pakistani armed forces from the Valley of Kashmir, Pakistan succeeded in occupying Gilgit, Baltistan and the adjoining frontier territories. When the ceasefire was declared in January 1949, Kashmir Valley, Jammu, Ladakh and Kargil were left within India and Pakistan occupied a vast territory of Mirpur, Muzaffarabad and Gilgit-Baltistan.
Subsequently, by a mere stroke of pen, Pakistan divided the occupied territory of Kashmir into two: (i) ‘Azad Jammu and Kashmir’ or Pakistan occupied Kashmir (PoK), comprising Muzaffarabad, Mirpur, Bagh, Neelam, Sudthi, Rawlakot, Bhimbar, Kotli; and (ii) Gilgit-Baltistan. Due to its strategic importance, Pakistan enforced federal control over Gilgit-Baltistan and renamed it the ‘Northern Areas. Later, 2700 square miles of Gilgit-Baltistan area was ceded to China in March 1963, in exchange of China’s support.
Covering an area of about 28,000 square miles, which is 5 to 6 times more than that of PoK, the Gilgit-Baltistan region comprises 7 districts under the new administrative arrangement.
(i) Skardu and (ii) Ganche have been part of Skardu/Baltistan-the erstwhile Tehsil of the Ladakh District of Jammu and Kashmir.
(iii) Gilgit includes former Gilgit Tehsil
(iv) Hunza-Nagar
(v) Diamir includes Chilas, Tangir and Darel.
(vi) Astor
(vii) Ghizar includes Gupis, Punial, Ishkoman and Yasin.
In early 1982, General Zia-ul-Haq publicly announced that these areas were never part of Jammu and Kashmir State before 1947. It evoked lot of protests in Jammu and Kashmir on both sides of the LoC. At a huge May Day rally in May 1982, Sheikh Abdullah, the then Chief Minister of Jammu and Kashmir State, declared that ‘the whole of PoK, including Gilgit, constitutes the territory of the State’. In fact, General Zia had brought this area at par with the other provinces of Pakistan by declaring it as Martial Law Zone ‘E’ with its own Martial Law Administrator in 1977, which was not done in the case of PoK. Ever since then, there has been simmering discontent in PoK about this de facto merger of Gilgit-Baltistan with Pakistan. Demands have been made to hand over its administration back to the PoK government.
In 1990, a petition was filed before the High Court of ‘Azad Kashmir’ pleading that the ‘Northern Areas’ be considered a part of ‘Azad’ Jammu and Kashmir, and that their separation is illegal. Advocate Raja Muhammad Haneef, who argued the case of constitutional status of Northern Areas on behalf of the petitioners Haji Amir Jan and Abdul Aziz in the ‘Azad’ Kashmir High Court-made the following points:
- That ‘Northern Areas’ were historically a part of State of Jammu and Kashmir.
- In the July 1947 elections to the Jammu and Kashmir State Assembly, Raja Jagmat Dadool Nano, Chewing Rinchen, Raja Fateh Ali Khan, Ahmed All Khan, Raja Raza Khan and Muhammad Jawad Ansari were elected the members from the ‘Northern Areas’.
- In 1949, the ‘Azad’ Kashmir government was not in a position to look after the ‘Northern Areas’ due to the lack of communications. Therefore, the administration of ‘Northern Areas’ was transferred to the government of Pakistan by the ‘Azad’ Kashmir government in April 1949.
- Clause 6 of the Sino-Pak Agreement signed in March 1963 provides that ‘Northern Areas’ are a part of the State of Jammu and Kashmir.
- On 15 July 1991, the ‘Azad’ Jammu and Kashmir Assembly, demanded that the local administration of the ‘Northern Areas should be handed over to the ‘Azad’ Kashmir government in terms of the AIK Interim Constitution, 1974.
- None of the Constitutions of Pakistan, 1956, 1962, 1972 and 1973 recognise that the ‘Northern Areas’ are part of Pakistan.
In its written statement lodged before the AJK High Court, the Pakistan government admitted that ‘Northern Areas’ were not a part of Pakistan territory, and that the Constitution of Pakistan and other laws were not applicable to the ‘Northern Areas’. It also admitted that the ‘Northern Areas’ were a part of the State of Jammu and Kashmir. In its written statement, the ‘Azad Kashmir’ government pleaded that the ‘Northern Areas’ were part of Jammu and Kashmir.”
These details about how Pakistan has been treating these areas since 1947 are relatively unknown to the people of India. Even for the policy makers in this country, some of the facts revealed in this chapter will come as eye opening and enlightening.
In another chapter titled ‘Geo-Strategic Importance of Gilgit-Baltistan’, after providing a detailed account of the historical perspective in which the area has remained a corridor through which India had an unhindered and direct access to Central Asia, Prof. Warikoo concludes, “Due to its geo-strategic location abutting the borders of China, Pakistan and Afghanistan, and being in close proximity to Central Asia, Jammu and Kashmir is the strategic frontier of India in its north. Jammu and Kashmir offers India the only overland access to Central Asia. However, independent India lost the opportunity of having direct overland access to Xinjiang and Central Asia after it allowed Pakistan to illegally occupy the vital strategic territory of Gilgit-Baltistan and PoK in 1947-48. India needs to safeguard its interests in this strategic frontier by securing direct overland access to Afghanistan, Tajikistan and other Central Asian countries, and to ensure that it has a peaceful, tranquil and benign neighbourhood. Taking into account the concept of strategic frontiers, India needs to determine the area within which no hostile or potentially hostile focus is to be allowed to exist or develop, so that its national security is not threatened.”
Senge H. Sering, a cultural activist from Baltistan, who currently is President, Institute for Gilgit-Baltistan Studies, Washington, while giving details of the massacre of local Shia population by the Taliban and other Punjabi and Pashtun Sunnis, notes in the chapter ‘Political Dynamics of Culture and Identity in Baltistan’ that, “Baltistan is experiencing an artificial social osmosis. While poverty and Taliban threats are causing Shia exodus from their ancestral homes, an increasing number of Pakistanis are acquiring land in Baltistan and claiming their stake as its citizens. The influx of Pakistanis started after 1974, when the regime of former Prime Minister Z.A. Bhutto abrogated State Subject Rule (SSR), a law introduced by the Dogra rulers of Jammu and Kashmir to bar outsiders from acquiring land in Baltistan and thereby preserving its demography, and encouraged a systematic settlement of Pashtuns and Punjabis there. Such a government-sponsored strategy has damaged the social fabric of Baltistan, and provoked religious feuds which continue to simmer. The settlers get government jobs on a preferential quota basis. Further, non-local federal employees, army generals, and politicians have acquired huge tracts of land through government allotment schemes, which also act as a catalyst of social change. Many of these wealthy newcomers exert power and influence in the socio-political arena by imposing their language and customs upon the locals, which further exacerbates the identity crisis. To counter such trends, leading religious leaders of Gilgit-Baltistan have been demanding the reinstatement of SSR. They are concerned that Pashtuns and Punjabis control local commerce. Similar views are being expressed by religious students of Imamia Students Organization (ISO) and Nurbakhshi Youth Federation (NYF)”.
Praveen Swami, currently Editor, Strategic Affairs of The Indian Express newspaper, also provides details of the resentment of local Shias in Gilgit-Baltistan against the anti-Shia policies of Pakistan in the chapter ‘Demography and Discontent’. Quoting from various sources, he writes, “Shia resentment against the creeping demographic shock—and the injection of Sunni-fundamentalist tendencies—took the form, in 1988, of demands for an autonomous Shia province, to be called Karakoram State. Zia-ul Haq responded to Shia mobilisation with military force. Pakistan’s former President, General Pervez Musharraf in 1988 (as Brigadier) led a ruthless campaign against Shia dissent with the assistance of Islamist militia groups led by a then-obscure Saudi jihadi named Osama bin Laden. A subsequent investigation by a Pakistani magazine, The Herald, reported that the army and Osama bin Laden’s forces “destroyed crops and houses, lynched and burnt people to death in the villages around Gilgit town. The number of dead and injured was put in the hundreds. But numbers alone tell nothing of the savagery of the invading hordes and the chilling impact it has left on these peaceful valleys”.
All the chapters in the book are not about political history of PoK. The book also covers the cultural landscape of the area. For instance in ‘Rock Art of Gilgit-Baltistan’, Muhammad Arif, former Deputy Director, Northern Circle of Archaeology, Lahore provides details of the remains of Shaivism and Buddhism in Gilgit-Baltistan. Prof. K.Warikoo explores the Buddhist past of the region in the chapter ‘Karakoram Himalayas and Central Asia: The Buddhist Connection’. In the chapter titled ‘Sharda: History and Importance’, Ayaz Rasool Nazki, Director, ICCR Cultural Centre, Srinagar, has given details about the ancient shrine of Sharda (the Goddess of learning), which was also an ancient University and is located in the Neelam Valley in PoK. Muhammad Rafiq Bhatti, Principal, Shah-e-Hamdan College of Business Administration, in the chapter ‘Language, Culture and Heritage of Mirpur’ unravels the nuggets of Mirpuri culture for the readers.
The economic exploitation of PoK and Gilgit-Baltistan at the hands of Pakistan government has also been discussed threadbare in some of the chapters of the book. Shabir Choudhry, Director, Institute of Kashmir Affairs, London, in the chapter titled ‘Hydropower Exploitation in Gilgit-Baltistan and Pakistani Administered Kashmir’, highlights the relentless exploitation of hydropower resources of the region by Pakistan, without any or very little benefit accruing to the people of this area. He concludes, “After the Indus Waters Treaty was signed in 1960, India remained quiet on the issue of the Mangla Dam and its adverse impact on the population of Mirpur. This area was also part of the Jammu and Kashmir State at the time of signing of accession, which imparts the legal authority to India over the entire State of Jammu and Kashmir and not only for the areas currently under India. From a legal point of view, Pakistan’s case on the Kashmir dispute is much weaker. It is time for India to assert its position over the State of Jammu and Kashmir, and to take lead in ensuring social, economic and political rights of the people of Jammu and Kashmir, both under Indian control and under Pakistani occupation”.
In a similar vein, Safdar Ali, Spokesman of Balawaristan National Front, also highlights Pakistan’s sinister design to exploit the region in the chapter ‘Bhasha Dam Project: Geographical, Historical and Political Perspectives’. He reveals, “North West Frontier Province of Pakistan has nibbled away very quietly entire Yaghistan, is now prying on Chilas, Jaglot, Gilgit and is also cunningly laying claims on the Bhasha Dam royalty. The entire proposed Bhasha Dam site, including many miles downstream of the river Indus, is actually part and parcel of the territory of Gilgit-Baltistan of the Jammu and Kashmir State”.
The other significant chapters in the book that deal with the geo-political and strategic significance of PoK and Gilgit-Baltistan include ‘The Karakoram-Himalayan Region: Geopolitical Perspective’ by Major General (Retd.) Afsir Karim, a well known defence analyst, in which he writes’ “No Pakistan government took any concrete steps to address the wider issues of development and the lack of empowerment of the people of the Northern Areas…Moreover, Musharraf’s cynical use of Shias as gun fodder during Kargil war created bitterness against Pakistan’s military regime. He actually left them to die on the heights of Kargil and even their dead bodies were not collected after the war…”
Paul Beersmans, President, Belgian Association for Solidarity with Jammu and Kashmir, in the chapter titled ‘Political and Democratic Process in Gilgit-Baltistan’ informs the readers, “It is interesting to note that on the Indian side of the LoC, politicians and separatist leaders have the right to travel to all parts of Jammu and Kashmir State. Despite a large concentration of security forces, separatist leaders have used this right to travel to Ladakh and Jammu to conduct political activities. On the Pakistani side of the LoC, however, where apparently ‘azad’ people live, politicians and political activists have no right to travel to Gilgit-Baltistan areas. A few years back, the Prime Minister of ‘Azad’ Kashmir expressed his desire to visit Gilgit-Baltistan. He was told categorically by the Federal Ministry of Kashmir and Northern Areas Affairs (KANA) that he cannot go there, that he was Prime Minister of ‘Azad’ Kashmir and that Gilgit-Baltistan does not fall under his jurisdiction. In addition, the separatist leaders from the Indian side, while visiting the Pakistani side, were not allowed to visit the Northern Areas”.
In the chapter ‘Role of Political Parties in Pakistan Administered Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan’, Shaukat Kashmiri, Chairman, United Kashmir People’s National Party, writes emphatically, “In our view, the Republic of India has a constitutional responsibility: (a) to unify the whole state; (b) to push back all infiltrators; (c) to ask the government of Pakistan to vacate the occupied areas, so that until the final settlement, these areas are administered in accordance with the international law on disputed territories and entities; and (d) to ensure that the democratic, progressive and secular forces of `Azad’ Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan are supported by the civil society and democratic forces of India and Jammu and Kashmir”.
In the chapter ‘Political Unrest in Pakistan occupied Kashmir (PoK): A View from the Pak Press’, Dr. Priyanka Singh, associated with IDSA writes, “Due to preoccupation in countering cross border terrorism sponsored by Pakistan over the years in the State of Jammu and Kashmir, India has not been able to focus much on the miseries on the other side of the border.” She goes on to make out a strong case for India’s intervention in the region, as it has legal right over the territory, which is under illegal occupation of Pakistan.
In the chapter ‘Sectarian Conflict in Gilgit-Baltistan’, Alok Bansal, Senior Fellow at the Centre for Land Warfare Studies, New Delhi reveals “Musharraf also initiated a process that involved large-scale induction of Punjabis and Pakhtoons into the sparsely populated Gilgit-Baltistan to convert the Shia majority of the region into a minority. The influx continues to this date, and the proportion of Shias and Ismailis in the overall population has come down significantly. The state-sponsored influx of Punjabis and Pakhtoons from outside has created an acute sense of insecurity amongst the Shia population. It is widely believed in Pakistan that a Shia airman from Gilgit, wanting to take revenge for the May 1988 carnage, was responsible for the air crash that killed General Zia. After 1988, sectarian riots have become a regular feature in Gilgit-Baltistan. The pattern shows that whenever people demanded their constitutional rights, sectarian riots were engineered to divide them. There were media reports that officials themselves were encouraging riots to prolong Islamabad’s unconstitutional rule”.
Other chapters in the book including ‘Religious Extremism in NWFP, Swat and Chitral: Impact on Gilgit-Baltistan’ by Manzoor Hussain Parwana, ‘Human Rights Situation in Pakistan Administered Kashmir’ by Nasir Aziz Khan and ‘Pakistan Occupied Kashmir: An Emerging Epicentre of Global Jihad’ by Wilson John, provide significant insight into what is currently happening in this region and why it is important for India to make all out efforts to reclaim this area from Pakistan, which is illegally and illegitimately occupying it.
This well researched and meticulously edited book, liberally illustrated with photographs and maps, is a timely and significant addition to the scarce literature focused on PoK. Prof. K. Warikoo, who has authored/edited 20 books including ‘Himalayan Frontiers of India’, ‘Xinjiang: China’s Northwest Frontier’ and ‘Religion and Security in South and Central Asia’ (all published by Routledge from UK and USA), has done yeoman’s service to the nation by providing the theoretical edifice on which any future strategy to reclaim the PoK and Gilgit-Baltistan by India will rest.
Follow our WhatsApp channel