Northern Areas of Kashmir in Crisis: Gilgit-Baltistan, Governance Without Citizenship
Gilgit-Baltistan, part of the historic Northern Areas of Kashmir, stands today at the centre of a deep constitutional and political crisis. This mountainous region, long tied to the unresolved Kashmir dispute at the United Nations, is being governed through administrative orders rather than constitutional law, according to “The Friday Times Pakistan”. Recent actions by Pakistan’s Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) have once again brought this long-standing problem into sharp focus, exposing how power is being exercised without citizenship, representation, or legal inclusion.
On December 30, 2025, the FBR issued a press release stating that the Customs Act “stands extended” to Gilgit-Baltistan (GB). According to the statement, all customs duties would be collected at the Sost Dry Port on imports entering GB, regardless of whether those goods were meant for local use. The FBR claimed that this system was designed to prevent misuse of tax-exempt goods and protect fair competition in the rest of Pakistan.
But for the people of Gilgit-Baltistan, this is not simply a question of customs procedures. It is about sovereignty, rights, and dignity. It is about being governed without being recognised as citizens.
A Region Outside the Constitution
Under Article 1(2) of Pakistan’s Constitution, the territory of Pakistan is clearly defined. Gilgit-Baltistan is not included in this definition. Unlike the former FATA and PATA regions, which were constitutionally merged into Pakistan through the 25th Constitutional Amendment, GB remains outside the constitutional framework. Its governance depends largely on executive orders rather than parliamentary law.
This constitutional gap has serious consequences. Federal laws, including tax and customs laws, apply only within Pakistan’s constitutional territory unless they are lawfully extended. Administrative notifications or press releases cannot replace constitutional authority. Yet, this is exactly what the FBR has attempted to do by declaring, without constitutional backing, that the Customs Act applies to GB.
Courts Push Back
In July 2024, the Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court directly challenged this practice. The court restrained Pakistan Customs from collecting income tax and sales tax on goods imported for local consumption through the Sost Dry Port. It went even further, questioning the very legality of the Customs Department’s presence in the region.
The court’s message was clear: federal tax laws were never validly extended to Gilgit-Baltistan, and their enforcement there lacks legal authority. This ruling reaffirmed a basic constitutional principle “state power must come from law, not convenience”.
Despite this, customs officers continue to operate in GB, and duties continue to be imposed. By repeating unlawful actions, the state risks normalising illegality.
Taxation Without Citizenship
The contradiction becomes even sharper when the FBR issues exemptions. On January 1, 2026, the FBR notified special rules for the Sost Dry Port, exempting more than 2,400 Chinese-origin items from sales tax, income tax, and federal excise duty. But this raises a simple legal question: if these taxes do not lawfully apply to GB, what authority does the FBR have to grant exemptions?
An exemption assumes jurisdiction. One cannot exempt what one has no power to impose. This contradiction highlights the fragile legal footing on which the entire customs regime in GB stands.
Economic Impact on a Fragile Region
These policies have real economic consequences. Imagine an investor in Gilgit-Baltistan wanting to set up a fruit juice processing plant for export. Even if the machinery is worth Rs. 5 billion and meant to create local jobs, customs duties and conditions are imposed at Sost. On top of this, the FBR has set an arbitrary annual import ceiling of Rs. 4 billion for goods entering GB under special arrangements, “a limit with no clear legal or economic basis”.
Such restrictions discourage investment, slow development, and deepen poverty in a region already facing severe socio-economic deprivation. Instead of enabling growth, the system acts as a barrier.
Customs as Sovereign Power
Customs control is not a technical service; it is an exercise of sovereign authority. Establishing customs posts, appointing collectors, and regulating imports are acts of state power over territory and people. Exercising this power without constitutional inclusion amounts to governance without consent.
For decades, the people of Gilgit-Baltistan have complied with federal regulations while being denied representation in Pakistan’s Parliament, denied inclusion in the Constitution, and denied full citizenship. This mirrors the colonial practice of rule without representation, a reality many in GB now describe as “post-colonial recolonisation.”
Kashmir, the UN, and Strategic Ambiguity
Gilgit-Baltistan is not just a domestic issue. It is part of the larger Kashmir dispute, recognised at the United Nations as unresolved. Pakistan has long argued that the final status of GB must be determined in line with the right of self-determination for the people of Kashmir.
However, maintaining permanent ambiguity has costs. It weakens Pakistan’s international position and creates internal instability. While India’s actions in Indian occupied Jammu and Kashmir after August 2019 are widely criticised, India at least opted for constitutional clarity, however controversial. Pakistan, by contrast, continues to exercise control without ownership or responsibility.
The Way Forward: Citizenship First
There is only one sustainable solution. The people of Gilgit-Baltistan must be granted full constitutional citizenship through a clear legal process. This would require making GB a province through a constitutional amendment, with full representation in the National Assembly and Senate, while carefully safeguarding Pakistan’s stance on the Kashmir dispute at the UN.
The Supreme Court of Pakistan itself has noted that granting rights and self-governance to GB would strengthen, not weaken, Pakistan’s case internationally.
Conclusion
Gilgit-Baltistan does not need more notifications, exemptions, or “special procedures.” It needs recognition, rights, and dignity. Administration cannot replace citizenship. Exemptions cannot replace equality. And sovereignty cannot be exercised without constitutional responsibility.
Until Gilgit-Baltistan is given its rightful place, politically, economically, and constitutionally, the region will remain trapped in limbo, paying the price of deprivation while others decide its fate.
