Category - Uncategorized
Articles, Diplomacy, Politics, Security & Strategy, Uncategorized
Gilgit-Baltistan Under Pakistani Apartheid
The Article 370 instrumentalised deprivation, tyranny, and subjection of the people of Jammu, Kashmir, and Ladakh. This temporary provision in the Indian constitution not only enforced apartheid on the non-Muslims but also discriminated against Muslim residents who spoke languages other than Kashmiri.
For decades, Kashmiri leaders denied Ladakh’s most fundamental rights, including a functioning administrative division and commissionerate. The elimination of Article 370 amounted to the gift of not only a division, but also an autonomous Union Territory. Ladakhis now obtain funds from the central government and prioritise development goals without having to wait for handouts from Srinagar. In the absence of Article 370, Ladakhis can achieve equitable rural development for far-flung communities, particularly in valleys along the Line of Actual Control. With Article 370 gone, the Hill Councils and Panchayats of Ladakh, Poonch, and Chenab have fiscal autonomy and legislative power.
Its abolition has come as a gift for female members of the society with improved gender equity and freedom to choose life partners and claim inheritance. Its termination has helped to expose massive fraud in the system, including recruiting, revenue distribution, tax collection, and property acquisition. Its withdrawal also meant the end of official funding for Kashmiri extremist and separatist organizations.
However, the most significant effect of removing this article is that it deprives the Pakistani army of their strategic veto over India under the pretense of fighting for the rights and liberties of Kashmiris. The Pakistani military can no longer impose its will on India and wage unchecked terrorism without serious consequences.
Outsiders may find it hypocritical that many people in POJK celebrate the repeal of Article 370 in Indian Jammu, Kashmir, and Ladakh while still advocating for the return of State Subject Rule in Gilgit-Baltistan as it existed before the Pakistani invasion.
In their defence, the Indian constitution guarantees the protection of lands and cultures across all states and regions. However, these fundamental rights must be preserved and promoted without granting the Pakistani military a veto over Kashmir.
Pakistan is an occupier with no locus standi regarding Kashmir's accession. Its sole duty is to withdraw from the entire POJK, including Gilgit Baltistan, and allow the inhabitants to handle their affairs with the Indian government.
The British constitutional stipulations for India’s partition, which were irrevocable and obligatory on all subjects, granted legal authority to the Maharaja of Jammu, Kashmir, and Ladakh to merge his State with India. If Islamabad wishes to contest Maharaja’s decision according to popular will, then decisions of all those princely rulers who merged their States with Pakistan should be scrutinised and verified in the same manner. Let the United Nations ask the people of Khairpur, Kalat, Kharan, Lasbela, Bahawalpur, Swat, Amb, Dir, and Chitral whether they wish to live under Punjabi apartheid in a bankrupt de facto military-ruled Pakistan.
The repeal of Article 370 has understandably enraged Pakistan's ruling establishment, as it mirrors their own apartheid system, which favors Punjabi preferential treatment and supremacy over minorities, including Sindhis, Baloch, and Pashtuns.
The Pakistani constitution safeguards the interests and authority of the Punjabi establishment to seize property, revenues, and rights from the Baloch, Sindhis, and Pashtuns at whim. For instance, the Baloch, Sindhi, and Pashtun do not have a first-right-of-use statute when it comes to indigenous natural resources. While the entire Punjab benefits from Balochistan's gas supplies for heating and cooking, the Baloch still have to subsist on firewood and cattle dung to prepare meals. In contrast, the Punjab government can cut off wheat supply to minority provinces at any time, effectivelyu utilizing food security as a strategic weapon to control and coerce non-Punjabi ethnic groups.
The Punjabi establishment also prohibits the use and teaching of native languages in schools. As was the case in Jammu Kashmir and Ladakh before the repeal of Article 370, an alien language from central India known as Urdu is forced on every Pakistani for the sake of maintaining Islamic identity.
Gilgit-Baltistan is a constitutional part of India but, due to Pakistan's illegitimate occupation, its inhabitants neither benefit from Indian laws nor are they able to enact and design their own laws for development and security.
In exchange for crumbs, Pakistan steals billions of dollars in natural resources from Gilgit-Baltistan. All profits from cross-border trade, river royalties, and exploitation of local forests, minerals, and marble end up in Islamabad. The Punjabi rulers forbid locals from mining and marketing precious gemstones and medicinal herbs, and force them to watch helplessly as foreigners profit from the earnings.
In an astonishing admission, the chief minister of Gilgit-Baltistan recently stated that the yearly development budget of Gilgit-Baltistan, a territory far larger than the Indian state of Haryana, is only 20 billion rupees. When converted into Indian currency, it is less than 7 billion rupees, which is hardly sufficient to construct a decent-sized school building or bridge.
The state-sponsored Shia massacres have consumed tens of thousands of lives in the past 78 years. Currently, an unknown number of Shias are serving prison sentences for blasphemy, with many awaiting execution. Those who protest economic slavery and genocide are imprisoned on charges of terrorism and treason. Local courageous political activists, notably Nusrat Hussain, Mir Babar, and Muhammad Shakir, continue to confront governmental oppression and violence.
Javed Naji, the deputy chairperson of the Awami Action Committee, was assassinated not long ago because he had emerged as a forceful voice of resistance against Pakistani savagery in the Diamer area. Diamer is where Pakistan and China have illegally taken tens of thousands of acres of local land to construct the Basha Mega Dam. This is dubbed as the world's largest roller-compacted concrete (RCC) dam under development. Naji, with a significant following, had planned to run for the 2026 assembly election. He advocated for Shia-Sunni unity and sought the removal of foreigners, including Pakistanis, from Gilgit-Baltistan.
Yet, locals no longer fear Pakistan's brutal occupiers. People are more alert and unified than ever before, thanks to social media, and they openly protest and valiantly face the charging paramilitary personnel in their neighborhoods. Furthermore, Islamic terrorists like Ghazi Maqbool, Ghazi Shehzad, and Khalid Kashmiri that Pakistan deployed against India for decades, have turned against the Pakistani ISI to expose atrocities against Kashmiris.
All these matters can be addressed and resolved if Gilgit-Baltistan returns to India, where its inhabitants will be greeted with love, respect, dignity, and equal citizenship.
The indigenous cultures and languages of Gilgit-Baltistan, as is the case in Ladakh, will receive constitutional protection. The robbery of local lands will come to an end, ensuring equal treatment in development. Tthe state-led genocide of Shias will also come to an end, and no one will be imprisoned or executed for blasphemy.
With Article 370 repealed, locals expect India to take concrete actions to liberate POJK. There are 56 Muslim countries in the world, yet none of them stand with the people of Gilgit-Baltistan and the POJK in their efforts to expose Pakistani occupation. Given current conditions, the Indian government should step forward to advocate for its citizens in occupied territories and assist them in their fight against Pakistan.
It is time for POJK residents to be represented in the political institutions of Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh, as well as in the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha. POJK activists who travel the world to expose Pakistani atrocities and strengthen their legal relationship with India will be greeted with respect and seriousness if they appear as members of Indian constitutional bodies. Protection under the Indian constitution will provide them with the legitimacy they deserve for their bravery and sacrifice.
In the meantime, the Indian Home Ministry should create a special category known as Indian Citizens in Occupied Areas. Under this provision, people from POJK should not need a visa to enter India, or if a visa is required, the terms and restrictions could be simplified.
On Vijay Diwas, we, the area’s residents wish to remind India of its constitutional obligations to Gilgit-Baltistan. If India plans to combat terrorism, the Pakistani presence in Gilgit Baltistan is a serious terrorist threat that it must defeat.
Introduction
Vladimir Putin’s 4–5 December visit to Delhi holds significant meaning in a turbulent geopolitical climate, enabling India to reaffirm its strategic autonomy amid intense Western pressure over the Ukraine conflict while strengthening its longstanding partnership with Russia. The visit underscores India’s careful balancing act of relations with both Washington and Moscow to protect national interests. Defence cooperation—long the foundation of the relationship—will be central to discussions, including next-generation platforms, assured spares, potential collaboration on the Su-57, and the expansion of India’s S-400 air-defence units. An important focus will be India’s assessment of the S-500 Prometheus system, especially after the S-400’s demonstrated operational success during Operation Sindoor, where it compelled Pakistani aircraft and missile platforms into retreat. Energy security remains a priority, with a focus on long-term supply agreements and exploring Indian investments in the Russian Far East. The outcomes of the visit will convey carefully calibrated signals to Washington, Beijing, and European capitals about the firmness, depth, and strategic importance of the India–Russia partnership.
The S-400 and S-500 Systems
India’s S-400 air defence system, known to NATO as the SA-21 Growler, is a highly advanced long-range surface-to-air missile platform developed by Russia’s Almaz bureau. Experts regard it as superior in several ways to the US Terminal High Altitude Area Defence (THAAD) system. India purchased five S-400 regiments in 2018 for $5.43 billion (₹35,000 crore), each equipped with 16 launchers, mobile command posts, and powerful radar complexes. Three of these are already deployed along the western and northern fronts, with the fourth and fifth regiments scheduled for delivery in 2026. Capable of detecting and engaging aircraft, cruise missiles, ballistic missiles, and drones at ranges up to 400 km and altitudes of 30 km, the system can track 160 targets and engage 72 simultaneously. Its rapid deployment time—about five minutes—gives it a decisive operational edge. The S-400 entered service in India in 2021, but its acquisition sparked concerns in Washington due to the US CAATSA law, which mandates sanctions on major Russian defence purchases. India maintained that the system was vital for national air defence, and in 2022 secured a congressional waiver allowing uninterrupted induction. Integration of the S-400 into India’s multi-layered air defence network has been seamless, complementing indigenous Akash batteries and Israeli MRSAM and SpyDer systems. Collectively, these capabilities significantly enhance India’s deterrence posture and its ability to protect critical airspace.
Recent conflicts—including Operation Sindoor, the ongoing Russia-Ukraine war, and the Israel–Iran strikes—have reaffirmed the critical need for a robust, layered air-defence shield. Operation Sindoor particularly demonstrated how an integrated system can prevent large-scale destruction by neutralising aerial threats with near-perfect precision. During Operation Sindoor, India’s S-400 system proved decisive: it detected, tracked, and engaged multiple Pakistani aircraft hundreds of kilometres inside Pakistan’s airspace, with the Chief of Air Staff, Air Chief Marshal A.P. Singh, later confirming five enemy fighters were shot down. This forced Pakistan to abandon the use of long-range glide bombs, as its aircraft could not penetrate the S-400 envelope. Reports also indicate the system achieved a rare long-range kill at over 300 km. These results reflect the S-400’s broader capabilities—engaging aircraft, drones, cruise, and ballistic missiles at ranges up to 400 km and altitudes of 30 km, with the ability to track 160 targets and engage 72 simultaneously. Its rapid five-minute deployment gives it a further operational edge. Integration of the S-400 with India’s layered air-defence network, including Akash, MRSAM, and SpyDer systems, has been seamless. Collectively, these platforms have transformed India’s defensive posture, demonstrating the decisive value of an advanced air-defence ecosystem in modern warfare.
Besides Russia, several countries operate the S-400. China became the first foreign buyer in 2014, followed by Turkey in 2017. Algeria is also believed to have acquired and deployed the system, though details are limited. Belarus has received multiple units from Russia, with some reportedly operated by Russian personnel. New Delhi is now contemplating not only expanding its existing S-400 air defence regiments but also the potential acquisition—and partial co-production—of the much more advanced S-500 Prometheus system.
The S-500’s enhanced performance range is key to its appeal. While the S-400 has a maximum interception distance of about 400 km and can engage targets up to 30 km in altitude, the S-500 greatly extends these limits. It can reportedly target threats at ranges of 500–600 km and altitudes of 180–200 km, enabling it to operate in near-space, far beyond most current air defence systems. This significantly broadens India’s strategic coverage and improves its ability to detect and neutralise long-range threats.
Regarding the target profile, the difference between the two systems is equally notable. The S-400 can intercept aircraft, drones, and cruise missiles, forming the core of theatre-level air defence. The S-500, however, broadens this range to include long-range ballistic missiles and potentially hypersonic glide vehicles—capabilities that elevate the system from tactical and operational defence to national-level strategic defence. Defence analysts also point out that the S-500’s 77N6-N and 77N6-N1 hit-to-kill interceptors might even be capable of shooting down aircraft such as China’s J-20 stealth fighter.
A key difference between the two systems is the interceptor missiles they use. While the S-400 employs 48N6 and 40N6 missiles, the S-500 features advanced 77N6-series interceptors designed for exo-atmospheric engagement, enabling it to neutralise threats at much higher speeds and altitudes. Another important aspect of the proposed S-500 acquisition is the co-production model under discussion. Unlike the S-400 deal, which involved an off-the-shelf purchase, the S-500 proposal is expected to involve partnership with Russia’s Almaz-Antey for manufacturing components in India. This supports New Delhi’s broader drive for defence indigenisation and long-term technology absorption.
India’s operational experience with the S-400 has already been positive. The system has integrated smoothly with India’s layered air defence grid—comprising indigenous Akash batteries and Israeli MRSAM and SpyDer systems—demonstrating compatibility with a diverse set of platforms. Given its cost, scale, and strategic implications, the S-500 may become India’s largest defence acquisition from Russia to date, marking a significant transformation in India’s air and missile defence architecture.
COMPARISON CHART: S-400 VS S-500 AIR & MISSILE DEFENCE SYSTEMS
| S-400 | S-500 | |
| Range | 400 km | 500-600 km |
| Altitude | Up to 30 km | Up to 180-200 km |
| Target Types | Aircraft, drones, cruise missiles | All S-400 targets plus ballistic missiles and hypersonic glide vehicles. |
| Defence Role | Theatre Air Defence | National-level ballistic and hypersonic defence |
| Interceptor family | 48 N6, 40 N6 | 77N-6, 77N6-N1 (hit-to-kill) |
| Threat category | Tactical and operational | Tactical and Strategic |
| Coverage Effect | Protects regions/theatres | Protects major cities, strategic bases and critical national assets. |
| Deterrence outcome | Provides regional air-superioirity advantage | Offers continental-scale missile and hypersonic defence |
Conclusion
With regional missile and emerging hypersonic threats rapidly evolving, India needs an air and missile defence system that is prepared for the future. The S-500 supports this vision not as a replacement for the S-400, but as a strategic addition that broadens India’s protective shield from the atmosphere into near-space. India’s strong operational experience with the S-400 has naturally increased interest in its successor, and a joint IAF–DRDO team has already tested the system in Russia. Moscow’s willingness to offer full technology transfer and co-production aligns well with India’s Make in India initiative and could enable local manufacturing of launchers, command posts, and engagement radars. However, Russia’s capacity to sustain large-scale production while fighting a prolonged war in Ukraine and facing sanctions will affect timelines and availability. Ultimately, India’s decision will depend on whether the S-500 can be delivered, deployed, and integrated smoothly enough to bolster the country’s evolving layered air and missile defence architecture for the decades to come.
Reference:
“Sky Sentinels: A Deep Dive into S-400 and S-500 Missile Systems”, United Service Institution of India
“India to Acquire More S-400 & S-500 Missiles | Boosting Air Defense Across the Country”| NewsX, 22 October 2025
“What is the S-400, Su-57 deal? Key agenda at India-Russia summit ahead of Putin-Modi talks”, Financial Express.com, 03 December 2025
What Makes Russia's S-500 Different From Its Predecessor S-400, NDTV.Com, 02 December 2025
