Uncertain Status of FATA and GB

Not all Pakistani citizens are completely Pakistani citizens. While this was true for several minorities, such as the Ahmedis, whose rights contrast with the majority Sunni population, it is also true for large swathes of territory too. Places like Gilgit-Baltistan (GB), Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK) and Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) still do not enjoy the same constitutional protections that other Pakistani citizens do. They are administrative anomalies; a ramshackle and makeshift jumble of old colonial law, customary law, and incomplete legislative acts – which leaves their residents uncertain and unprotected.  Although the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) has recently shifted its focus towards restructuring these faults, its promise of reform – like so many governments before – may yet be just another cosmetic change.
Addressing a rally in connection to Independence Day in GB, Information Minister Senator Pervaiz Rashid said the people of the province would get their “constitutional rights”, and will prosper due to the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC). At the same time the debate over the fate of FATA is also underway; the government is pushing for a merger with the province of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, a section of tribal leaders and political representatives want FATA to be declared an autonomous province, while some moot a hybrid system – a provincially administered tribal area (PATA). Both regions, though different in history and administrative setup, are essentially arguing for the same thing – equal rights and powers as other provinces – and success of one campaign is bound to increase the pressure of the other.    
The demands seem reasonable and intuitive, and many will rightly wonder why after decades of independence are these regions still administered like colonies of an imperial power. The forces that kept the situation stagnant are at work again. Rich tribal elders reject the proposal because it would mean losing absolute control over their marble and coalmines and having to pay taxes, while losing a virtual indemnity from the national courts. In GB, giving provincial status would require the government to allocate funds and resources to the remote area, and letting go of decision-making power for the region. Perhaps this explains why Pervaiz Rashid’s speech skipped over the finer points of the promised “constitutional right”; does it mean provincial status or yet another piecemeal reform package?
The homogenization of government law and giving the protection of the constitution to all citizens should be the government’s top priority, regardless the opposition.