Leadership crisis in Gilgit-Baltistan

The people of Gilgit-Baltistan — emerging from the womb of the Kashmir conflict, which lies at the heart of the Pakistan-India dispute — have been facing numerous fundamental issues for the past seven decades. Chief among them is the unresolved constitutional status and a crisis of national identity. Under the guise of these issues, the people have been deprived not only of basic human rights but also of the right to ownership and self-governance. As a result, a growing sense of alienation is taking root in society, alongside increasing feelings of marginalization. Public discontent is now manifesting in the form of protests and sit-ins, an undeniable reality.

A recent example of this public unrest is the public turmoil following the legislation on land in the Gilgit-Baltistan Assembly. One of the core reasons for this political instability and social estrangement is the acute crisis of public leadership, which had long been ignored. It is no exaggeration to say that the leadership crisis has fueled many of the region’s social issues and has played a key role in perpetuating them. Therefore, to address these problems, it is crucial to understand the concept and importance of political leadership, as it helps identify the root causes of these issues.

In his renowned book “Five Levels of Leadership”, the famous author John C Maxwell writes, “Leaders don’t fall from the sky or come pre-made from the womb. Becoming a good leader is not the work of a day, a month, or even a year—it takes long-term political and intellectual struggle.”

As Vladimir Lenin said, “A social revolution is impossible without an ideological revolution.”

A great leader is a realist. Unlike idealists, they don’t envision their region’s future through the lens of personal desires or fantasies. Instead, they understand that the future is not born from individual wishes but emerges from the demands of the present.

It’s a fact that no dream is fulfilled in a day, nor does a nation’s fate change overnight. That’s why a good leader must invest years of daily political and intellectual development. This fundamental distinction sets leaders apart from ordinary activists.

A leader must not only be aware of the local and national political landscape but also possess a deep understanding of international laws and the political conditions of neighboring countries. In today’s world, which has become a global village, international politics profoundly affects local politics. As former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan once said, “It is often said that all politics is local, but now every local politics has global consequences that affect the quality of life worldwide.”

In this age of globalization, a leader cannot be like a frog in a well—ignorant of the world outside. No self-aware nation would ever accept such a leader. A national leader continually learns from the experiences of the world’s best leaders to address the challenges facing their people in line with public aspirations.

It is often said that anyone can steer a boat, but only a leader can take it to its destination. That’s what makes someone a true guide.

Leadership and politics are inseparable. The level of political consciousness in any society can be gauged by the competence of its leadership. Leaders attract followers who reflect their own character and vision. In societies like Gilgit-Baltistan, many claim to represent the people, but most do not even understand the essence of leadership or the real problems people face—let alone how to solve them.

Artificial leaders view leadership not as service but as a tool for personal gain. They often equate leadership with holding a position, even though leadership has nothing to do with titles. In colonial systems, positions are often handed to those whose primary job is to obey orders from above, making them little more than paid agents. Their politics revolves around compromising national interests in return for personal benefits.

Such pseudo-leadership serves only to attain power through elections or selection. They have no real connection to the people. History is full of such facilitators in colonial systems. But like all things, facilitators too have a shelf life. As time passes, they are discarded into the dustbin of history. Gilgit-Baltistan’s history reveals that such fake representatives disappear from the political scene after one or two elections, never to be seen again. A few years later, even they struggle to remember their political past.

There’s a long list of individuals in Gilgit-Baltistan who mistakenly equated position with leadership and vanished into historical obscurity. People remember them not as leaders, but as mere tools of the system. On the other hand, those who struggled for the rights of their oppressed people are remembered with pride. Even if they die after enduring suffering, persecution, and imprisonment, they remain alive in the nation’s collective consciousness for generations.

A harsh reality of the colonial system is that, while real national leaders are ignored, a steady stream of fake leaders is pushed to the frontlines. They change faces, shout new slogans, and win votes—only to begin exploiting public resources at the behest of their masters. In the name of public rights, they actually pave the way for looting public wealth.

In this vile cycle of hypocrisy and betrayal, faces change, but the problems remain. No positive change occurs in society. Instead, public anxiety grows. Laws are passed against the will of the people to expropriate their resources. Such representatives spread hopelessness and tarnish the nation’s dignity. This has been happening in Gilgit-Baltistan for the past seventy years.

Despite being liberated from the Dogra regime, Gilgit-Baltistan was made subordinate to a Political Agent due to the absence of genuine leadership. Instead of democratic rights, the draconian FCR (Frontier Crimes Regulation) was enforced. It was only through the efforts of a few prominent leaders that FCR was abolished. But this led to the rise of artificial leadership. Sectarianism was promoted, jobs were distributed unjustly, and a flood of fake leaders was created, the consequences of which are still being felt.

Today, these facilitators are still visible. Their only skill is their loyalty to power. On the other hand, those who struggle for national rights are few due to systemic oppression. Yet history proves that such few individuals are the ones who become immortal.

In a colonial setup, there is a dire need for unwavering and courageous leadership—committed to leading their people toward their goals. This requires a strong, organized national movement. It is not the job of a single individual. National leaders, with the people’s help, build strong political institutions. They not only train workers ideologically but also understand that leadership is not about holding a position—it’s about responsibility and service.

A position may help momentarily, but true national leadership endures beyond titles. Leadership is a lifelong commitment. A good leader always reflects on the possible solutions to national problems, considers multiple strategies, understands the objective reality, and chooses the best course of action. They are deeply aware of their people’s temperament and history and demonstrate courage in the face of adversity.

A true national leader knows that in the political arena, they may face life-and-death situations. Storms and crises are part of the journey. A good leader is one who can weather the storm and inspire belief in their people—who, in turn, place their trust in that leader.

A good leader can make sound decisions in difficult times. They know who their allies are, who are opportunists, and who may betray them. That’s why a leader cannot afford to make mistakes in choosing companions. Otherwise, political death and the failure of the national movement are inevitable.

A defining trait of a national leader is integrity. Their character is so upright that even their enemies acknowledge it. Their politics revolves around public service, not lies. They avoid making false promises because history shows that deceivers remain politically relevant only until their lies are exposed.

A true leader is not stuck in tradition but is progressive. With changing times, circumstances change, and so must ideas. Sociology teaches us that “change is the only constant.” Political conditions evolve with time, and the rise and fall of nations are tied to it.

Circumstances can rapidly change people’s thoughts and beliefs. History never flows backward; it always moves forward.

Thus, public leaders must continuously learn and grow with time. A national leader never divides their people, never deliberately puts them through hardship, and never misleads them. Once public trust is broken, and a leader repeatedly makes poor decisions, the people lose faith, and the leader fades into obscurity.

Historically, when a leader’s awareness falls below that of the public, the people reject them outright. Such fake leaders quickly vanish from the pages of history.

Crucially, if we look across the spectrum—from union councils to the Gilgit-Baltistan Assembly—we must acknowledge a bitter truth: we are facing a severe leadership vacuum. We have countless so-called politicians, but very few national leaders. And our national question is as complex as Kashmir. To resolve it, we need not just politicians, but statesmen who can steer this sinking ship to shore.

The positive sign is that public awareness in Gilgit-Baltistan has far outpaced the so-called leadership. Even more encouraging is that people in this constitutionless land have begun to fight for their basic human rights. If we study the past five years, we’ll find more protests and sit-ins than in the past seventy. Undoubtedly, this is a sign of political awakening. Moreover, Gilgit-Baltistan is an immovable land—a blessing of nature.