As Amended by The Constitution Twenty First Amendment Act, 2015
PART
I
Introductory
1. The Republic
and its territories:-
(1) Pakistan shall be Federal Republic to be known as the Islamic
Republic of Pakistan hereinafter referred to as Pakistan.
(2) The territories of Pakistan shall
comprise:-
(a) the Provinces of 1Balochistan, the
2Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, 3the Punjab and 4Sindh;
(b) the Islamabad Capital Territory,
hereinafter referred to as the Federal Capital;
(c) the Federally Administered Tribal
Areas; and
(d)
such States and territories as are or may be included in Pakistan, whether by accession or otherwise.
(3) Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) may by law admit
into the Federation new
States or areas on such terms and conditions as it thinks fit.
2. Islam to be
State religion.− Islam shall be the State religion of Pakistan.
GILGIT-BALTISTAN
GOVERNMENT
OF PAKISTAN
MINISTRY
OF KASHMIR AFFAIRS AND
NORTHERN
AREAS
****
Islamabad,
the 9th September, 2009
AN
ORDER
to provide greater political empowerment and better
governance to the people of Gilgit-Baltistan;
WHEREAS
it is expedient to
undertake necessary legislative, executive and judicial reforms for granting
self-governance to the people of Gilgit-Baltistan and for matters connected
therewith or incidental thereto;
NOW,
THEREFORE, the Government of Pakistan is pleased to make the following Order:-
1. Short title, extent and commencement.-
(1) This Order may be called the Gilgit-Baltistan (Empowerment and
Self-Governance) Order, 2009.
(2) It extends to the whole of areas
Gilgit-Baltistan.
(3) It
shall come into force on at once.
HISTORICAL CONTEXT
The administrative status existing in the area at the time of
the events in 1947 were as under:
A. Gilgit:
· Gilgit
Wizarat - Gilgit proper with its immediate surrounding district is known
as the Gilgit Sub-division, and up till 1935 the Sub-division was administered
by Kashmir. The Gilgit Sub-division should not be confused with the Gilgit
Agency. The former is about one tenth the area of the latter. In 1935 the
British Government appreciated the necessity for the Sub-division being
included in the Agency and coming under the direct control of the Political
Agent owing to the
increasing infiltration into Chinese Sinkiang of Russians. The
Sub-division was therefore leased from the Maharaja of Kashmir for a period of
sixty years and the entire area was taken under the absolute control of the
Political Agent.
· Chilas
& Republics of Darel and Tangir - Administered by the Assistant Political
Agent in Chilas with a native "Raja Ardal".
· Political
Districts of Punial, Gupis/Koh-e-Ghezir, Yasin and Ishkoman - Each headed by an
appointed native Governor with restricted autonomy and under considerable
control of the Political Agent.
· Mirs
of Hunza and Nager - Hereditary and almost independent with only limitation of
conducting foreign affairs in which consultation with the Political Agent in
Gilgit was a requirement.
B. Baltistan:
For centuries,
Baltistan consisted of small independent valley states that were connected to
each other through blood relationships of the rulers (rajas), trade, common beliefs
and strong cultural and language bonds.[8] These states were subjugated by
force by the Dogra rulers of Kashmir in the nineteenth century.[9]
Valley State District
After
the successful rebellion of Gilgit scouts on 31st October- 01st
November 1947, some elements of Kashmir infantry and above all strong feelings
of the populations the governor sent from Kashmir in August 1947 was
overthrown. Subsequent military campaigns in 1948 under express approval of the
newly established government in Pakistan resulted in the total freedom of the
territory initially designated as NORTHERN AREAS.
The
Mirs and the Governors of the Political Districts exercised their option to accede to Pakistan [obviously
in consonance with the wishes of the populations] their
territories and communicated the same either in writing or verbally to Major
William Brown, Commandant GILGIT SCOUTS - obvious authority in Gilgit at that
time - who in turn communicated it through wireless messages to Khan Abdul
Qayyum Khan, the Prime Minister [CM] NWFP Peshawar as well as Col Bacon PA
Khyber [the last British Political Agent in Gilgit] with an additional request
to post a Pakistan Government Political Agent expeditiously.
Quaid-e-Azam accepted the accession and asked the Prime Minister to issue "a simplified Instrument of Accession" on the 6th of November 1947 - see MOST IMMEDIATE minute no 380-G initiated by Liagat Ali Khan. Mir of Hunza, Jamal Khan as well as Mir of Nagar, Shaukat Ali Khan, signed this instrument on 19th November 1947.
Further parleys with the delegations from the region in 1950 resulted in continuation of the administrative structure of an Agency which continued till 1974. Ever since different options have been instituted by GOP.
The Governor-General of Pakistan M. Ali Jinnah endorsed this ‘instrument of accession’ on 7 December 1947.
Further parleys with the delegations from the region in 1950 resulted in continuation of the administrative structure of an Agency which continued till 1974. Ever since different options have been instituted by GOP.
Zia-ul-Haq’s Martial Law period the ‘National Movement for Democracy’ had formed in Pakistan in 1985 and inspired stakeholders of the Northern Areas to launch a ‘Movement for the Determination of the Constitutional Position of Northern Areas’, calling for the constitutional integration of the Northern Areas into Pakistan and electoral rights for the population. They demanded the release of political prisoners and of judges and public officials who had participated in political protests; their other demand was equal pay for civil servants and equal grants for students from the region.
Nearly four decades after independence, constitutional limbo prevailed and created a situation where inhabitants of the Northern Areas felt deprived and treated as second-class citizens. A resolution was presented by leading personalities from the Northern Areas to President Zia-ul-Haq in 1987; these demands have been repeated several times since. When Benazir Bhutto came to office the granting of provincial status to the Northern Areas was contemplated again. During the interim government of Moeen Qureshi public unrest and sectarian clashes caused casualties and curfew conditions in August 1993 that resulted in a reform package two months later. The administrative setup was modified, but the constitutional status remained untouched. In the light of rising public unrest and continuing tensions new solutions were explored. During Benazir Bhutto’s second term in office, a strong promise was made to alter the constitutional status in favour of the people of Gilgit and Baltistan. A reform package was debated; in February 1994 its implementation was postponed because of tensions between India and Pakistan in the Kashmir issue. When she visited Gilgit on 18 May 1996 the time seemed to be ripe to explicitly announce ‘a legal frame work order, giving right of franchise to the people of Northern Areas’. Her statement was seconded by the Federal Minister of Kashmir Affairs and Northern Areas, Muhammad Afzal Khan who, in his capacity as Chief Executive Northern Areas, stated that ‘the Northern Areas Council was fully empowered to make decisions within the legal framework adding it was not less than a provincial assembly’.
Benazir Bhutto failed to implement her promises, just as many similar announcements were never fulfilled. Her second-time follower Nawaz Sharif did not alter the constitutional status of the Northern Areas one iota. In 2002, President General Pervez Musharraf indicated that he would ‘delink’ the Northern Areas issue from the Kashmir dispute and bring the administered area at par with other provinces of Pakistan. These announcements have become a common feature with various governments, but none has yet been sufficiently audacious to grant an equal constitutional status.
On
29 August 2009 the Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan announced the
creation of Gilgit–Baltistan, a new province-like autonomous region with Gilgit city as its capital and Skardu as the largest city. A sizable
number of young generation activists are however not satisfied and raise their
voices for a vigorous constitutional status – some even demanding cessation and
independence.
It is a travesty of justice and history to link GB with the Kashmir dispute.
In the first place the distinction between the Gilgit WAZARAT (SAT-MAQSO) and Gilgit agency has been confused. In 1935 SAT-MAQSO was taken on lease by the British from Kashmir. In 1947 when the decision was made to partition India into two countries the WAZARAT was returned to Kashmir, The Maharaja appointed Brigadier Gansara Singh as the governor of Gilgit WAZARAT in August 1947. Gilgit Scouts rebelled on the night of 31st October 1947, deposed the Governor and acceded to Pakistan. The local rulers in the GILGIT AGENCY responded and decided their accession to Pakistan through Quad-e-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah. Quaid-e-Azam accepted the accession and asked the Prime Minister to issue "a simplified Instrument of Accession" on the 6th of November 1947 - see MOST IMMEDIATE minute no 380-G initiated by Liagat Ali Khan. Mir of Hunza, Jamal Khan as well as Mir of Nagar, Shaukat Ali Khan, signed this instrument on 19th November 1947.
VIEWS OF
GOP
European
Union constituted a committee under the chairpersonship of Baroness Nicholson
of Winterbourne. This committee compiled its report titled "Kashmir Present Situation and
Future Prospects" on 21 March 2007. The report also deals with the
status of Northern Areas (Now Gilgit and Baltistan). Embassy of Pakistan in Brussels
through its letter dated 8th May
2007 expressed the government's views.
“In this context, I would like to bring to your notice the
following salient points regarding the Northern Areas of Pakistan:
• The Northern Areas of Pakistan consist of six districts, viz.
Gilgit, Skardu, Diamir, Ghizer, ,Ghanche and Astore, Its population is around
1,5 million and it spreads over a vast area of 72,495 sq. Km.
• Historically, the Treaties of Lahore and Amritsar of 1846, which constitute
the basic documents regarding the establishment of the State of Jammu and
Kashmir, do not recognize its territorial limits on the areas westwards of the
River Indus. The whole of Northern Areas, which include Gilgit Agency and
Baltistan Agency, was not a part of Jammu and Kashmir State in August 1947.
• The States of Hunza and Nagar were never treated as part of Jammu and
Kashmir. They were autonomous states but nominally under the suzerainty of the
Dogra ruler. Hunza and Nagar acceded to Pakistan and the instrument of
accession signed by the Mirs (rulers) of these states was accepted by the
Quaid-e-Azam in 1947.
• The UNCIP resolutions are also relative to the State of Jammu and Kashmir and
do not, in any manner, apply to any part of the Northern Areas which were not
included in the State of Jammu and Kashmir before 1947 From this perspective, integration of the Northern
Areas with Pakistan is also not prohibited.”
CONTEXTS
FOR CONSTITUTIONAL STATUS/GOVERNANCE STRUCTURES IN THE MODERN WORLD
1. Federalism, Human Rights and Peace within the State
2. The main constitutional Principles:
a. History
b. Rule of Law
c. Protection of Minorities
d. Democracy
3. Built and driven by the society and the sub-national societies.
4. Democracy and freedom are results from the French Revolution. Other people in Europe tried also to free themselves from feudal powers. The 1848 “Peoples Spring” were economically and politically -
“we want to be our own masters of our life” - reasonable.
5. The way it was achieved and its societal diversity marked the political design of the new Federations.
6. Strong Decentralization and Sharing of Powers:
· Bicameral Parliament as the U.S.A.
· Collegial Federal Government (No strong President)
· Double majorities for Constitutional Powers
7.
Power sharing - vertical and horizontal - helps you to integrate a diverse society and produces stability by high legitimacy. Real participatory rights transform a primarily representative, indirect democracy into a direct democracy.
8. Nobody has so much power that he has the ambivalent privilege, not to have to learn. When the democratic power is really shared with the people, political progress and social change have to be understood as collective learning processes. Every citizen has the right to propose where he or she thinks progress and change are necessary!
9. Inside the infrastructure of a democracy has to be modernized in order to remake its direct democracy serve the people best.
10. Self-Determination Secession and International Law, Historic cases of secession:
a. 1776 USA Declaration of Independence And later Secession of the South?
b. 1903 Panama
c. 1901 Venezuela and Equador from Columbia
d. 1905 Norway from Sweden
e. 1947 India Pakistan
f. 1971 Bangladesh
g. 1974 Jura
h. 2006 Montenegro
i. 2008 Kosovo
j. 2011 South Sudan?
11. Threatening secession:
a. North of Iraq
b. Kashmir
c. Congo
d. Belgium
e. Italy
f. Spain
g. Quebec?
h. Sri Lanka?
12. Problems:
a. Right of self-determination of whom Majority, qualified majority of Federal unit?
b. Peoples? Citizens with residence?
c.Procedure:
d. Who decides?
e. Democracy: Question, Citizens, qualified Majority?
f. Transitory Law
g. Property
h. Recognition
i. Contemporary examples:
13. a.
Montenegro Article 60 Withdrawal from the State union of Serbia and Montenegro
Upon the expiry of a three-year period the member state shall have the right to initiate the procedure for a change of the state status, i.e. for withdrawal from the State union of Serbia and Montenegro.
A decision to withdraw from the State union of Serbia and Montenegro shall be made after a referendum has been held. The Law on Referendum shall be passed by a member state, taking into account recognized democratic standards. The member state that exercises the right of withdrawal shall not inherit the right to international legal personality and all outstanding issues shall be regulated separately between the successor state and the state that has become independent.
If both member states declare in a referendum that they are in favour of changing the state status, i.e. in favour of independence, all outstanding issues shall be resolved in the succession procedure, as was the case with the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
b.
Badinter Arbitration Case:
i. that in the case of a federal-type state, which embraces communities that possess a degree of autonomy and, moreover, participate in the exercise of political power within the framework of institutions common to the Federation, the existence of the state implies that the federal organs represent the components of the Federation and wield effective power;
ii. The composition and workings of the essential organs of the Federation, be they the Federal Presidency, the Federal Council, the Council of the Republics and the Provinces, the Federal Executive Council, the Constitutional Court or the Federal Army, no longer meet the criteria of participation and representatives inherent in a federal state; Consequently, the Arbitration Committee is of the opinion:
- that the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia is in the process of dissolution;
· that it is incumbent upon the Republics to settle such problems of state succession as may arise from this process in keeping with the principles and rules of international law, with particular regard for human rights and the rights of peoples and minorities; that it is up to those Republics that so wish, to work together to form a new association endowed with the democratic institutions of their choice.
c.
Ethiopian Constitution Article 39 the Right of Nations, Nationalities and Peoples: Every nation, nationality or people in Ethiopia shall have the unrestricted right to self determination up to secession.
h.
Secession Procedure: The right to self determination up to secession of nation, nationality and peoples may be exercised:-
- . Where the demand for secession is approved by a two thirds (2/3rds) majority of the legislature of the nation, nationality or people concerned.
- Where the Federal Government within three years upon receipt of the decision of the legislature of the nation, nationality or people demanding secession, organises a referendum for the nation, nationality or people demanding secession.
- where the demand for secession is supported by a simple majority vote in the referendum.
- where the Federal Government transfers power to the parliament of the nation, nationality or people which has opted for secession.
- where property is partitioned in accordance with the law.
i.
Effects of a clear Vote: No direct legal effect despite a clear referendum result purport to invoke a right of self-determination to dictate the terms of a proposed secession to the other parties to the federation. The democratic vote, by however strong a majority, would have no legal effect on its own and could not push aside the principles of federalism and the rule of law, the rights of individuals and minorities, or the operation of democracy in the other provinces or in the country as a whole. Democratic rights under the Constitution cannot be divorced from constitutional obligations Nor, however, can the reverse proposition be accepted: the continued existence and operation of constitutional order could not be indifferent to a clear expression of a clear majority of secessionists that they no longer wish to remain in the country. The other provinces and the federal government would have no basis to deny the right of a provincial government to pursue secession should a clear majority of the people of choose that goal, so long as in doing so the rights of others are respected. The negotiations that follow such a vote would address the potential act of secession as well as its possible terms should in fact secession proceed. There would be no conclusions predetermined by law on any issue. Negotiations would need to address the interests of the other provinces, the federal government and indeed the rights of all citizens both within and outside the province, and specifically the rights of minorities.
j. Why Negotiations? The negotiation process would require the reconciliation of various rights and obligations by negotiation between two legitimate majorities, namely, the majority of the population of the province, and that of the country as a whole.
12. Protection of Minorities : We emphasize that the protection of minority rights is itself an independent principle underlying of constitutional order. Consistent with this long tradition of respect for minorities which is at least as old as Canada itself, the framers of the Constitution Act, 1982 included in s. 35 explicit protection for existing aboriginal and treaty rights, and in s. 25, a non-derogation clause in favour of the rights of aboriginal peoples.
13. Right of Self-determination: where "a people" is governed as part of a colonial empire; where "a people" is subject to alien subjugation, domination or exploitation; and possibly where "a people" is denied any meaningful exercise of its right to self-determination within the state of which it forms a part. Term “People”? While much of the population certainly shares many of the characteristics (such as a common history,language, religion and culture) that would be considered in determining whether a specific group is a "people".
14.
Self-determination:a. Internal: The recognized sources of international law establish that the right to self-determination of a people is normally full-filled through internal self-determination – a people's pursuit of its political, economic, social and cultural development within the framework of an existing state.
b. External: A right to external self-determination (which in this case potentially takes the form of the assertion of a right to unilateral secession) arises in only the most extreme of cases and, even then, under carefully defined circumstances.
15. There is no necessary incompatibility between the maintenance of the territorial integrity of existing states and the right of a "people" to achieve full measure of self-determination. A state whose government represents the whole of the people or people’s resident within its territory, on a basis of equality and without discrimination, and respects the principles of self-determination in its own internal arrangements, is entitled to the protection under international law of its territorial integrity.
CONCLUSIONS
1. GILGIT and BALTISTAN can be accepted as the 5th province in 1[2]d of the constitution of Pakistan through section 1[3] of PART-1 as an interim entity provided the present government in GB conducts a referendum in all the districts. The question asked from each citizen should be :
a. Do you want to be the 5th province?
b. Maintain Status Quo or
c. Secede from Pakistan either to join AJK or form an independent BOLORISTAN?
2. Based on majority vote for option 1c from one or more districts, the legislative assembly will hold negotiation with the representatives of the network of LSOs [people] in the light of principles covered above.
3. Since majority of budget [mostly dependant on Federal Grants] is presently utilized on salaries of a disproportionate central institutional set up for the government, it needs to be revamped towards the noble goals enshrined in the 2009 empowerment order. Excellent examples of village/tehsil/district governments do successfully exist in the world and recently in the KPK Province in Pakistan. In GB we have 72 LSOs established by AKRSP while the republics have an effective JIRGA system as equivalents to these entities. These can be integrated in the governance as CIVIL SOCIETY institutions in fulfilling the expectations of development and improvement in quality of life of citizens of GB through the same legalized mechanism as implemented in the
Province of KPK. Golden rule of democracy: “we want to be our own masters of our life” and Built and driven by the society and the sub-national societies- will have a real presence in our lives. READ:
DIRECT DEMOCRACY,
GB GOVERNMENT RESPONSE.
4. A steering committee be immediately established which is responsible for planning and implementing eGovernment in GB.
NOTE: Research paper “Kashmir and the northern areas of Pakistan: Boundary-Making along contested frontiers” by Hermann Kreutzmann, contains maps with delineations and historical documents.This research will be of immense help to policy/decision makers in resolving boundary issues.
https://www.erdkunde.uni-bonn.de/archive/2008/kashmir-and-the-northern-areas-of-pakistan-boundary-making-along-contested-frontiers
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0BxkGkCUURXBlcUhPRFN1ekQtc0k
RELATED DEVELOPMENTS IN SINKIANG
IMPORTANT MESSAGE TO THE POLICY and DECISION MAKERS:
GB is not a captured territory to be treated as a colony. We acceded to Pakistan and as such we have the legal option to REVOKE if we are not integrated constitutionally through democratic dispensation.
RELATED: WAR IN KASHMIR,
LATEST: The federal government on Monday sought time to implement Proposed Order pertaining to the status, authority and powers of Gilgit-Baltistan (GB) and the rights available to its people. “Time frame prescribed in the January 17, 2019 judgement may kindly be extended,” said the application filed by Ministry of Kashmir Affairs and Gilgit and Baltistan. A seven-member larger bench, headed by Justice Gulzar Ahmed heard the case related to implementation of the judgement. The bench issued notices to the Supreme Appellate Court GB and others.
The apex court in its judgement on January 17, 2019 had directed the federal government to promulgate the Proposed Order forthwith or within fortnight. “The Proposed Order (modified in the manner as noted in the judgement), shall be forthwith promulgated by the President on the advice of the federal government, and in any case within a fortnight.”
“No amendment shall be made to the order as so promulgated except in terms of the procedure provided in Article 124 of the same, nor shall it be repealed or substituted without the instrument amending, repealing or substituting the same being placed before this Court by the federal through an application that will be treated as a petition under Article 184(3) of Constitution. Nothing in this judgement shall be construed to limit the jurisdiction conferred on this court by the Proposed Order itself.”
“If the Order so promulgated is repealed or substituted by an Act of Parliament the validity thereof, it challenged, shall be examined on the touchstone of Constitution.” Attorney General for Pakistan, representing the ministry, submitted that the federation informed that in compliance with the apex court’s directions the Proposed Order was placed for approval before the federal cabinet. Some discontentment expressed by people and the government of GB were reported.
The people of GB demanded that instead of governing Gilgit-Baltistan through presidential orders, the areas should be governed through an Act of Parliament of Pakistan. The government of GB also raised certain observations that their viewpoints were not addressed. A meeting of the stakeholders was held on 06-02-2019, and consensus was reached that the Gilgit-Baltistan Governance Reforms, 2019 may be enacted through the Parliament as per aspiration of the people of Gilgit-Baltistan.
Accordingly, some amendments in the Proposed Order of the Gilgit-Baltistan Governance Reforms, 2019 were made in consultation with all the stakeholders including the government of Gilgit-Baltistan, Ministry of Law and Justice and the office of the Attorney General for Pakistan. It said that as per the outcome of the said meetings, it is proposed that a bill be tabled before the Parliament with the proposed amendments. The substantial compliance with the directions of the Supreme Court has been done and it would also fulfil the demands of the people of Gilgit-Baltistan.
For full and complete compliance with the directions of the apex court, time is granted for the enactment of the Gilgit-Baltistan Governance Reforms 2019 such that the federal government may table the bill before the Parliament with the amendments. In June 2018, the President of Pakistan approved the promulgation of “The Government of Gilgit-Baltistan Order, 2018,” which was challenged in Supreme Appellate Court GB. The GB Court set aside the Order 2018 on 13th July 2018 being not approved by the federal cabinet and restored the Gilgit-Baltistan (Empowerment & Self Governance) Order, 2009.
The judgement of the Supreme Appellate Court was challenged before the Supreme Court through a constitutional petition. On 8th August, 2018 the Supreme Court of Pakistan suspended the decision of the Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit-Baltistan. The apex court on 3rd December, 2018, ordered the federation to prepare a fresh draft for the governance of Gilgit-Baltistan of the amendments on the basis of the recommendations of the Sartaj Aziz Committee and a high-level committee constituted by the federal cabinet.
HISAMULLAHBEG.BLOGSPOT.COM
A blog towards a vibrant and competent civil society - the cornerstone of a…
Posts
