English
Arabic
Chinese (Simplified)
Russian
Spanish
Urdu
Ever since I started writing on socio-political issues, I have regularly raised my voice for the people of Pakistan-Occupied Jammu and Kashmir and Pakistan-Occupied Gilgit Baltistan, who have been suffering under the oppression of Pakistan. Pakistan keeps claiming Jammu and Kashmir as its own, notwithstanding the occupation of PoJK. I now intend to draw attention to the sharp developmental differences that exist between the state of Jammu and Kashmir and PoJK, but also touch upon what Pakistan has been doing in Gilgit-Baltistan and Balochistan.
While Jammu and Kashmir has invested a lot in infrastructure, education, health care, and civic facilities, PoJK still faces underdevelopment with almost no attention being paid to it. The condition of the roads, hospitals, schools, and basic civic amenities is pathetic, and there is a negligible possibility of employment. Poor maintenance of basic civic amenities and economic activities seems to be monopolized by external powers rather than by the local communities themselves. All these points highlight the severe contrast that depicts how strategic interests prevail over people’s well-being in PoJK.
In turn, Gilgit-Baltistan and Balochistan are resource-rich regions, which have drawn both state and foreign attention. Gilgit-Baltistan is rich in hydropower, minerals, and gemstones, while Balochistan is rich in copper, gold, coal, and rare earths. Large infrastructure projects in the region include the Diamer-Bhasha and Bunji dams to feed Pakistan’s energy and industrial aspirations. However, within the scale of such a huge development, the benefit to the locals in those areas often remains minimal, and most of the revenue is transferred to the central authorities or external investors. The traditional ways of living are interrupted, and the environmental effects of these projects in high mountain regions, like glacier melt, landslides, and deforestation, will be a long-term problem for the areas.
Strategically, Pakistan has used these territories to further reinforce its geopolitical influence. Gilgit-Baltistan and PoJK are integral to the CPEC, providing transit routes and connectivity that serve broader regional interests. The constitutional ambiguity regarding Gilgit-Baltistan allows the federal authorities a high degree of control over development, land, and resource allocation without much representation from the locals.
Political marginalization continues to be a critical issue. The residents of GB, PoJK, and Balochistan have scant representation and little say in decisions related to their land and livelihoods. The military of Pakistan deploys large numbers throughout these regions to ensure tight control over governance and security. Whole villages are reported to have been razed to the ground and communities displaced under the command of Field Marshal Asim Munir in Balochistan. The displacements mean trauma for families, who have to search for their missing members amidst the rubble of their homes, presented as “security measures.” Local people view these events as state-engineered repression, reflective of the systematic suppression of dissent.
The illegal seizure of lands further deteriorates the situation in Balochistan. The Fauji Cement Factory, operated by the military, has been among those involved in fencing off villages and forcing the locals from these ancestral lands, further consolidating the ownership of valuable resources. Yet the Baloch people continued to appeal to international companies and investors, especially those interested in mineral and rare-earth exploitation, to abstain from being partners with occupiers. The message is very clear: the resources of Balochistan belong to their people, and the outside enterprises should not contribute to operations that lead to displacement and exploitation.
The other urgent concern is that of economic dependence. It is within this context of CPEC and foreign investments that the governmental approach to development in these regions breeds dependence on the central and external authorities. Large projects entail debt obligations and are usually very unequal in their economic benefits, with limited local control over growth. Aggressive resource extraction without fair reinvestment entrenches economic dependency, reduces autonomy, and threatens long-term sustainability.
The consequences are enormous. Communities in GB, PoJK, and Balochistan are impacted by environmental degradation, social disruption, and limited economic opportunity. Deforestation, glacier retreat, desertification, and forced displacement are common features of rapid, strategically driven development. These actions not only disrupt local ecosystems but also weaken the resilience of communities dependent on these lands for sustenance and cultural continuity. Ensuring environmental sustainability and equitable resource distribution is critical to mitigate these risks.
In sum, strategic, economic, and geopolitical motivations underpin the designs of Pakistan in PoJK, Gilgit-Baltistan, and Balochistan. The developmental gap between Jammu and Kashmir and PoJK shows how governance for strategic objectives can be detrimental to local welfare. Infrastructure and resource development projects are potential opportunities, but the local people must have agency and fair access to resources. Long-term stability requires protecting indigenous rights, ensuring equitable economic participation, and prioritizing environmental sustainability at every turn. The experiences of Balochistan, such as state-engineered displacement and land appropriation, emphasize how important it is that the world take an interest in the area and hold actors accountable. The message is clear: these regions’ resources belong to the local populations, and exploitation by occupiers or external actors must be prevented.
vadaiekashmir@gmail.com
