Opinion | How Pakistan Exploits POK & Gilgit Baltistan

The people of POK and Gilgit Baltistan have not been given the freedom to decide their political future. Instead, they live under restrictions that prevent them from expressing alternative viewpoints.

Although Pakistan describes POK & Gilgit-Baltistan as self governed and liberated, the lived reality for residents tells a different story. Political authority, economic decision making, and control over land and resources remain firmly concentrated in Islamabad, leaving local populations with limited rights and little voice. In POK Pakistan maintains a facade of autonomy through an elected assembly and a local government. However, real power does not lie with these institutions. The most influential body governing the area is the AJK Council, which is dominated by Pakistani federal officials and chaired by the Prime Minister of Pakistan. Key matters such as defence, foreign relations, major development projects, and financial policy are controlled entirely by Islamabad. As a result, elected representatives are unable to take decisions that genuinely reflect the aspirations of the people they claim to represent.

The situation in Gilgit Baltistan is even more restrictive. For decades, the it was ruled through executive orders without any constitutional recognition. Even today, its residents do not enjoy the same rights as citizens in Pakistan’s provinces. They have no representation in the national parliament and no constitutional safeguards over land, resources, or governance. Laws affecting everyday life are imposed from outside, often without consultation, reinforcing a sense of political exclusion that has persisted for generations.

One of the clearest indicators of Pakistan’s control is the restriction placed on political participation. In POK no individual or political group is allowed to contest elections unless they openly pledge loyalty to Pakistan’s official position on Kashmir. This rule effectively silences dissent and prevents any meaningful debate about autonomy or self determination. Voices that challenge this framework are excluded before they can even reach the ballot. Economic exploitation further deepens local grievances. Both territories are rich in natural resources, particularly water, yet the benefits rarely reach local communities. Large hydropower projects built on rivers such as the Indus and its tributaries generate electricity that is supplied to other parts of Pakistan. Villages near these projects often experience power shortages and receive little compensation for land or environmental damage. Decision making authority over these resources rests with federal agencies rather than local administrations.

This imbalance has intensified with infrastructure development under the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor. Roads, tunnels, and energy installations constructed through Gilgit Baltistan are presented as development initiatives, but residents frequently report land acquisition without consent, minimal employment opportunities for locals, and long term environmental risks. The strategic and economic gains largely serve Pakistan’s military and commercial interests, while the local population bears the cost. Civil liberties in Pakistan Occupied Kashmir remain tightly controlled. Journalists, activists, and community leaders who speak against land seizures, military expansion, or governance practices face harassment and detention. In Gilgit Baltistan, peaceful protests demanding constitutional rights or opposing unfair taxation have been met with arrests. This pattern of repression has created a climate of fear, discouraging public discussion on political and social issues.

Demographic pressures have also altered the social fabric of the region. In Gilgit Baltistan, locals have long expressed concern over policies that encourage settlement from other parts of Pakistan. Indigenous communities fear loss of land, culture, and identity, particularly as administrative decisions increasingly favour outsiders. These changes have contributed to social tensions that were far less pronounced before Pakistan’s administrative interventions. Military considerations dominate nearly every aspect of governance. Due to the region’s strategic location bordering India and China, Pakistan maintains a heavy security presence. Large tracts of land are taken for military infrastructure, often without transparent procedures or fair compensation. Civil administration frequently takes a back seat to security priorities, reinforcing the perception that the region is valued more for its geography than for its people.

Perhaps the most striking contradiction lies in Pakistan’s international rhetoric but it has never allowed such a democratic process in the territories it controls. The people of POK and Gilgit Baltistan have not been given the freedom to decide their political future. Instead, they live under restrictions that prevent them from expressing alternative viewpoints. The result of decades of political control and economic neglect is visible in everyday life. Infrastructure remains underdeveloped, healthcare and education facilities are inadequate, and unemployment is widespread. Natural disasters such as earthquakes and landslides have repeatedly exposed the lack of effective governance and preparedness. Occupied Kashmir today stands as a region administered without accountability and governed without genuine representation. Beneath the language of liberation lies a system that prioritises strategic advantage over democratic rights. Until the people living there are granted political freedom, control over their resources, and the right to speak without fear, Pakistan’s governance of the region will remain defined not by empowerment, but by exploitation and control.

(Syedjahanzeeb2@gmail.com)