Awaiting Redress: The Gilgit-Baltistan Discourse

 By Syed Shamsuddin

I recently came across an image of a crucial letter dating back to 1995—likely preserved in the archives of the relevant authorities—in which the then Chief Secretary of Gilgit-Baltistan astutely highlighted the region’s ground realities and, with commendable administrative foresight, made thoughtful recommendations to the then Central Board of Revenue, as follows:

A Crucial Document Reflecting the Ground Realities of Gilgit-Baltistan (1995)

Reference: Letter No. Sec-1(12)/95-CS, dated 13th December, 1995
From: Mahmood Khan, Chief Secretary, Northern Areas
To: Chairman, Central Board of Revenue
Copy: Secretary, Kashmir Affairs & Northern Areas Division, Islamabad

Key Highlights & Strategic Significance

1. Political and Constitutional Status

The letter candidly addresses the ambiguous constitutional status of Gilgit-Baltistan:

  • Though under de facto control of Pakistan since 1947, the region was not included in Article I of the Constitution.
  • It was administered through federal discretion, with limited application of laws and no representation in the national legislature.
  • The establishment of a separate Chief Court of Northern Areas (without appellate access to the Supreme Court) is emblematic of its isolation from Pakistan's mainstream judiciary.

2. Historic Role in Liberation & Accession

The letter acknowledges:

  • The self-liberation by the locals and subsequent voluntary accession to Pakistan.
  • The role of local tribes and Rajas in making a unanimous decision to join Pakistan, followed by the dispatch of the first Political Agent under Jinnah’s directive—lending moral and legal legitimacy to their claim for inclusion.

3. Socio-Economic Deprivation

The document paints a stark picture of chronic underdevelopment:

  • Absence of access to the national grid (WAPDA), natural gas, PTV, and industries.
  • A lack of employment opportunities, forcing thousands of educated youth into poverty and, in some cases, sectarian violence or unrest.

4. Border Trade as a Lifeline

  • After the opening of the Karakoram Highway in 1978, small-scale border trade with Xinjiang (China) emerged as a crucial survival avenue.
  • Loans by banks and DFIs helped unemployed youth start micro-businesses involving imports from China.
  • The letter recognizes the social stability gained by this engagement and warns that disturbance at the Sust Customs Check Post could reverse this progress.

5. Customs Checkpoint Crisis

  • The Customs Act, 1969, was extended to the region in 1980, but strict implementation without local consideration led to repeated law and order breakdowns.
  • In 1995, tightened customs enforcement at Sust stranded goods and youth in Kashgar and the border, exacerbating tensions.

Observation

The persistence of the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) in maintaining a policy that vehemently disregards the ground realities of Gilgit-Baltistan has, over time, engendered a horrific situation. Rather than evolving policy to address the region’s constitutional ambiguity and economic fragility, FBR’s rigidity inadvertently pushed many into exploiting loopholes.

A new phenomenon emerged: “Carrying”—a practice where opportunists started transporting merchandise belonging to traders from other parts of Pakistan, across the border from China, against a meager commission. These goods were then cleared through Sust by hook or by crook, further stoking legal and constitutional anomalies.

In stark contrast, the youth of Gilgit-Baltistan, driven by poverty and lack of options, attempting to bring in modest quantities for local consumption under baggage rules, were targeted, penalized, and strangled economically.

This dual policy effectively:

  • Fattened a few middlemen (carriers), who became millionaires and beyond;
  • Enabled large-scale traders (operating remotely from cities) to become trillionaires through unchecked tax evasion;
  • Stripped the region’s youth of dignity and opportunity, perpetuating hopelessness;
  • And caused substantial loss to the national exchequer, undermining the very purpose of regulation.

Thus, the FBR's flawed approach not only helped manipulating the region’s constitutional limbo and underdevelopment ad nauseam, to enrich a tiny, well-connected coterie at the cost of the region’s future.

Proposed Solutions in the 1995 Letter (Still Relevant Today)

The Chief Secretary offered pragmatic and humane solutions:

  • Immediate clearance of stranded goods at Sust as a one-time concession.
  • Issuance of a Special SRO allowing limited imports under baggage rules for GB residents.
  • Delegation of appellate authority under Section 6 of the Customs Act to the local administration, acknowledging the region's isolation and limited resources.
  • Distinct treatment for importers from other parts of Pakistan, with appropriate duties and strict enforcement—while facilitating and protecting the livelihood of the locals.

Concluding Note

This 1995 communication is far more than an administrative record—it is a strategic policy document that reveals how insensitive governance, if allowed to persist, perpetuates injustice and sows long-term discontent. As Gilgit-Baltistan continues to seek constitutional clarity and economic equity, this letter remains a touchstone, urging the state to revisit not only its policies but also its moral contract with the people of the region.

 

Supplementary Reflection: The Border Pass System and NATCL Legacy

The 1995 communication referenced above reveals a rare instance of administrative prudence. It should have compelled the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) to adopt a more nuanced and region-specific approach by framing special baggage rules to benefit the local, deprived segments of Gilgit-Baltistan. These segments—continuously issued Border Passes rather than passports—have a long-standing, state-recognized right and rationale to cross into Kashgar, not for recreation or tourism, but out of economic necessity.

Indeed, the raison d’être of the Border Pass system lies in facilitating these economically-marginalized communities, providing them with an outlet to alleviate their hardship through modest-scale trade with neighboring Xinjiang.

Historically, under the first Barter Trade Protocol of 1967, a formal body—the Northern Areas Traders Cooperative Limited (NATCL)—was established in Gilgit. The goods traded under this scheme were reportedly exempted from duties and taxes by the Central Board of Revenue through SRO No. 2(1)/70 dated January 1, 1970. This cooperative played a pioneering role in facilitating organized barter trade with Chinese counterparts in Kashgar. Border passes were issued exclusively to its caravan members, enabling this limited and regulated cross-border economic activity—until the exemption was withdrawn by the Board via SRO No. 492(1)/88 dated June 26, 1988.

However, with a policy shift in 1986, when the border was opened to general tourism, issuance of Border Passes became widespread among locals. Yet these were clearly not intended for leisure travel. Given the socio-economic context, their real purpose remained grounded in small-scale economic engagement rather than tourism—something that should have been clearly understood and respected by federal authorities.

Unfortunately, FBR’s continued disregard for these realities criminalized the youth who used their border passes to bring back modest baggage goods for local consumption, while failing to clamp down on the larger “Carry System”. In this systemic distortion, Customs staff at Sust not only looked the other way, but in some cases, facilitated the funneling of massive imports by proxy “carriers”—effectively marginalizing the rightful local traders.

This misguided policy climate, where legal and constitutional ambiguities were manipulated to the advantage of a remote elite, undermined both the spirit of the barter trade legacy and the trust of the people of Gilgit-Baltistan. It defeated the original intent of the Border Pass system and enabled a predatory practice where those least entitled profited the most, while local youth were hounded for exercising a right implicitly granted to them.It is high time this policy is urgently reviewed to allow the local people to bring in items in reasonable quantities under baggage rules without hindrance. However, there should be strict checks to prevent any attempt on their part to “carry” goods on behalf of traders or importers from outside Gilgit-Baltistan.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Non-ordinary Realms - Zarbiali's Tale

By Syed Shams Uddin A recent Facebook post by The Sacred Science casts an evocative and illuminating spotlight on the ancient, potent tradition of shamanism—particularly the sacred practice known among its initiates as “spiritual journeying” into what is termed non-ordinary reality. Rooted in indigenous wisdom that spans continents, this transformative practice transcends the physical plane, allowing practitioners to commune with benevolent spirits for healing, insight, and guidance. The post resonates deeply—especially for those familiar with the mountain cultures of Gilgit-Baltistan, where such traditions, though often cloaked in secrecy, have been whispered about for generations in twilight gatherings beside hearth fires. For the people of Gilgit, this post rekindles memories of one of the region’s most enigmatic and revered spiritual figures: the legendary shaman of Satmaski, Zarbiali of Bagrote Valley. A figure celebrated as both healer and mystic, Zarbiali looms large in th...
Read more

Episode 1: A Window to Gilgit-Baltistan

A window to Northern Areas-I, The Muslim dated July 4, 1997. By Syed Shamsuddin   Most of our people even today seem quite oblivious of the geo-political position of Northern Areas while the exact historical background concerning Gilgit-Baltistan and where these must stand politically remains yet another subject of discussion. Not to speak of a layman, a person of the stature of Chief Executive of the country, once inquired whether the Northern Areas an integral part of the north west frontier province (NWFP). This happened when he rule the country in the aftermath of martial law. Yet another minister on Kashmir and Northern Areas, during the democratic government that followed, was pleased to tell a member of the northern areas council that he owed his minisitership not to them (Northern Areas people) but to the turbaned man of his constituency, standing at the door of his official chambers. There is infact, dearth of substantial historical evidence as to when exactly man ...
Read more

Episode 4: A Window to Gilgit-Baltistan part-1

A window to Northern Areas-IV, The Muslim dated July 7, 1997 Author: Syed Shams ud Din    The word providence in Sheena language equates with ‘bagharo’ and in this sense, it may safely be implied that the term Bagrote emanated from this word as the valley once famous for its agricultural produce, wildlife and richness in fruits hence the people living there were used to be called ‘bagharoos’ – those distributing basic necessities of life. This attribute seems to have later degenerated into Bagrote – the land of ‘bagharoos’ (distributors).  It has been noticed that the famous mythology of Gilgit is all in Brushiski which also includes that of Kirak Prince. The attribution of all the names to almost all places of what was formerly called the Brushal are a pointer to the firm hold of this kingdom in the past as a reality. The people of these areas, prior to Islam, all embraced ‘Shamanism’. A cursory glance over the ancient history of India may abundantly reveal the fa...
Read more