Re-Naming the Northern Areas


 

  By Noor Muhammad Form Gojal (Gulmit)

Email: gulmitwala@gmail.com

The English lexicon defines a noun as "name of a place, person, creature or thing". We all have names, the objects around us have names, the places we live in have names, and the things that we consume are named. Name is a unique identity that distinguishes one entity from the other, to a large extent. The cultural, historical and religious significance of name can be understood by looking at the divide that exists between followers of different religions. I have, for instance, not seen any Muslim called Bhagat Ram or a Hindu called, Fida Ullah. Name is the first introduction of first, apart from his facial features. Similarly regions and places have their own names. I have not seen any nameless village or a nameless country till now.

What is the fuss, then, about renaming the northern areas? Before discussing the issue of renaming northern areas I will tell you about the decision of the Northern Areas Legislative Council (NALC) to rename the northern areas. Advertisements have been circulated in the local papers asking the stakeholders to propose the name that they deem fit for the mountainous northern region of Pakistan.

 It goes without saying that the present term used for the region i.e. "Northern Areas" or "Shumali Illaqa Jat" in all government books is merely a geographic description of the location of the entire region. This name does not have any historical or cultural relevance with the communities of the region.

It is not in their language, it is not derived from their history and, above all, it does not carry any cordial appeal for people of the region. A dive into the history of the region would help us comprehend the issue at hand from a stable view point. The region under discussion did not, ever, exist as a single political entity before the arrival of Sikh rulers of Kashmir. The entire region was divided into, often feuding, small states. Each state had a different ruler, a different flag, different strength and different identity. In the extreme northern areas were the rival states of Hunza and Nagar. There was the state of Gilgit, the state of Yasin, the state of Baltistan, the sate of Punial and the state of Shigar. Some regions, nevertheless, had separate collective names as well. For instance Yasin, Punial, Gupis and Ishkoman were also called Varshi Ghoom or Koh-e-Ghizar collectively.

But the fact remains that the thought of a collective name for the region may not have crossed the minds of the rulers who were proud of their own states and fought fierce wars and battles to retain their separate identity. Researchers have extracted some names that they think were used collectively for the entire region. Dardistan, Balawaristan and Baloristan are some of the names that foreign visitors of the ancient times used to denote the region collectively.

Had Pakistan not come into been and had the ancient states existed today we may, probably, not have been witnessing this collective struggle for a political identity. I am sure that none of the states would have liked the idea of shunning their ancient identity for a new one.

During 1947-48, however, while the subcontinent was on the verge of a political division a revolt erupted against the British and Dogra rulers of the region. This revolt gained momentum and resulted in the ouster of occupying forces from the region. Some, military leaders (most of them belonging to ruling families) decided to accede to Pakistan, having not been able to convince the Maharaja of Kashmir for more salaries and privileges. But before acceding to Pakistan they established a central "revolutionary government" in Gilgit, electing Shah Raees Khan as its President. The new state was called "Islami Jamhooria Gilgit" or the Islamic Republic of Gilgit. This ill fated state could exist for fifteen days only. It was abolished by a certain Mr. Alam Khan, who landed at Gilgit air port as the political agent of the government of Pakistan.

The war of independence is one of the only moments when all forces of the region fought against a common enemy. This war changed dynamics of the regional politics. The formation of a central government, that died an infant's death, was also a new phenomenon. I am not sure whether the military leaders of the war could have envisaged all that was occurring so quickly and so massively. Without debating the intentions and capacities of those leaders let's now return to where we had left the issue at hand. Using the term "Islamic Republic of Gilgit" for the newly founded state reflects on the momentary reactions of the leaders, to say the most. What would have been fate of that name if the state had existed is yet another debate.

After the war ended government of Pakistan had taken complete control of the entire region. Hunza and Nagar were able to retain their autonomy till the 1970s. Z.A.Bhutto abolished those states, because of a growing political movement started by local students against the rulers. Some people say that there were other factors, including the row over control of the "ruby mines" of Hunza, which led to the abolishment of the states. Not debating those reasons we will again journey towards, what some call, the emergence of an identity question.

Political parties emerged with their own agendas. Some demanded "constitutional inclusion" in the state of Pakistan. Some demanded "separate provincial status". Recently, some are demanding an "independent state", altogether. Karakuram National Movement (KNM) and its student wing KSO have been demanding that the region be called Karakuram, after the mountain range that happens to pass through parts of the region. Balawaristan National Front (BNF) uses the term Balawaristan for the region and demands that region be named as they wish.

Most of the writers, poets, intellectuals and segments of the intelligentsia, including members of the political parties, prefer to call the region as Gilgit-Baltistan. Clearly it can be seen that there is no unanimity amongst the political parties, the intellectuals and other stakeholders. The prevalent confusion is further intensified by the government's reluctance to ensure the right to vote regional representatives to the parliament. It is for sure, despite all the perpetual mayhem that no body likes the term that government of Pakistan uses for our region. Northern Areas, they say, also includes places like Abbotabad, Kohistan, Narran, Kaghan and Muree which are parts of NWFP.

 Unknowingly the people of northern areas are now, wholeheartedly, demanding a collective identity that has the ability to represent their culture, their history, their beliefs and their political priorities. The decision of NALC to collect proposals from the general public needs to be appreciated. It is however, important to realize that symbols of identity need to be nourished with care to obtain goals that are of strategic common good. Whether or not the almighty government of Pakistan accepts the name "suggested" by the NALC is another story in itself, however. We must not forget the fate of the bill passed by the NALC changing the name of the famous peak k2 to "Choghori" (as it is called in Balti). Some under secretary or deputy secretary at the KANA division had rubbished the bill and all that we could do was laugh at the "authority" of the NALC.

As far as what name should be chosen for the region is concerned the best method is a referendum based on the three top names received the committee setup to rename northern areas within the NALC. As far as my vote is concerned I would love to call it Balawaristan. This name, unlike Dardistan, Karakuram and Gilgit-Baltistan, has the potential to represent all the districts of northern areas. Besides its literary meaning, "Highlander Nation" gives it a political charm as well. However, my Balawaristan is politically the fifth province of Pakistan. I, personally, don't agree with the ambitious idea of a separate state.