Reconstituting the state

Gilgit-Baltistan and Azad Jammu and Kashmir have been in the news lately for both good and bad reasons. G-B faced unrest early this year when protests broke out in support of Iran. Rights and a share of resources from the common pool have been other persistent complaints. Till a few years back, the autonomously administered region had also turned into a refuge for militants, impacting the cohesion in an area of immense tourist interest. An effective counter-terror effort restored calm, though the threat remains. G-B has held its elections to a representative assembly this week, auguring well to ensure that people run their affairs through their chosen representatives. This should enable some respite.

AJK too has been on a boil. It has an elected representative assembly to run its affairs, and while it retains its singularity as the symbolic seat of all of Jammu and Kashmir, including the region illegally occupied by India (IIOJK), it must, of essence, depend on the Government of Pakistan to fund its development and function. It has lately been claiming rights similar to any other province, where all representation is through the electoral process without any nominations by the federal government in Islamabad. The twelve seats that are contested within Pakistan for the émigré Kashmiris from the Indian-occupied region are the bone of contention, with allegations that Islamabad exercises an unequal influence in the make-up of the assembly through such a separate electorate from mainland Pakistan.

The two regions also remain economic laggards even if socially vibrant and progressive. There is a need to reverse this equation. The state of Pakistan has bound itself in self-imposed restraints in the hope of a final solution on Kashmir, which Pakistan rightly insists is a dispute reinforced by numerous UNSC resolutions. However, neither India nor the UN have made any substantial progress towards resolving the issue, which has now turned into a legacy issue – a euphemism for 'oh, it is something from the past between two quarrelling neighbours', sadly. India incorporated IIOJK into its structure as a regular state of India, dismissing any pretensions that it was a special-rights region needing resolution. That doesn't necessarily remove the tag of it being disputed, but to whatever end, India hopes that time and resources will mollify what remains of the resident sentiment for independence.

India has divided Kashmir into parts, established new residency rules, and is on the way to merge the disputed region completely with political and demographic gerrymandering. The last state and national elections in IIOJK do not seem to have registered a protest vote. The resident Kashmiris of AJK, administered under Pakistan, hold similar aspirations, but the Government of Pakistan, for fear of the issue being diluted through formal incorporation of the region into mainland Pakistan, has desisted from making the move.

There is some logic to Pakistan's stand because it has professed for long that Kashmir needs a plebiscite per the aspirations of its people and per the statutes of individual rights of a people. But there is an equal need to ensure that the part that aligns itself with Pakistan from within the disputed region must be administered in an exemplary manner. Currently, it is not the case. There should be a more formal engagement of the federation with these regions to ensure equal rights with equal resource allocation to both G-B and AJK. This is only possible when the status of the autonomously administered regions is changed to two regular provinces in a substantive structural correction. It is about time the federation rethought its strategy, both on the two provinces and on the larger issue of Kashmir. Passive acquiescence does not and will not deliver a different consequence. Necessary provisions can be made in the Constitution enabling a review whenever the larger issue of Kashmir and adjoining areas finally settles.

China, while not a recognised party to the Kashmir dispute, has its own case on Ladakh, areas adjoining Tibet, and the Aksai Chin, part of which borders G-B. Pakistan has already ceded that part to China in a border agreement in 1963. The remaining Aksai Chin is under Chinese control, needing settlement between China, India and Pakistan when the larger issue of Kashmir is finally resolved. This explains why Pakistan proceeds on G-B with caution, given the special nature of its relations with China. But if residents of the regions under the control of China and India are being given their due rights with opportunities as regular citizens, Pakistan should make an equal effort to facilitate and enable the people that remain under its administration.

The creation of two additional provinces will need a wholesale review of the Constitution, permitting changes relevant to the needs of the time. This inevitably will mean tinkering with the structure of the federation, fiscal distribution, and the balance between federal and provincial authority and domain. This will help remove the unnecessary mental blocks sensitive to some, opening the clauses for a review. A constitution must enable effective governance, not obstruct it. Pakistan suffers from inadequate and ineffective governance without accountability. The 18th Amendment has given rise to quasi-federal centres of authority, causing rough edges in the federal-provincial relations. A lack of a cohesive approach to common issues that blight ordinary people's lives results in their alienation. A review of the structure and fiscal shares will help soothe such a sentiment.

The provinces are too large to be centrally controlled from provincial headquarters. Just as the 250 million population cannot be administered from Islamabad, provinces with a 120 million population and one-third the size of the country are ungovernable from one location alone. The local governments under Article 140A have been denied by the provincial governments for fear of giving away authority and control of resources to the lower tiers of government. Instead, four humungous centres of power have emerged. They have magnificently failed at effective governance, delivery of service and ensuring basic rights to the citizens per the basic tenets of the Constitution. It is time for them to be cut to size. Or the failure of Balochistan to ensure security to its citizens, the state of Karachi as it stands, the lack of availability of health and education for the people, and inattention to remote regions will continue to manifest in collective failure to govern effectively. Showpiece projects cannot replace wider delivery of service and people's rights.

The 18th Amendment was meant to be an enabler, not a disabler. Unless we recognise how badly it has halted progress, we will continue to be administratively dysfunctional while the populations turn increasingly disenfranchised. Pakistan today is facing the consequences of its disabilities. It needs a desperate course correction through structural readjustments.