Hunza – Nagar district headquarter, 3 options finalized

PT Report

Gilgit, June 22: A GBLA mandated committee has proposed three locations in Nagar Valley for establishment of the Hunza – Nagar district headquarter. The proposal has been sent to CM secretariat for approval and notification.

According to details, Shayar, Asqurdas and Sumayar have been proposed as suitable locations for establishment of the district headquarter. These locations are most suitable for the people of Central and some parts of lower Hunza, as well as the people of Nagar – I. The residents of Gojal Valley in Hunza and Nagar – II are going to benefit less from the proposed locations.

Representative from Nagar – II, Finance Minister Muhammad Ali Akhtar, has opposed the proposal. However, there seems to be a general consensus among the other three GBLA members, Speaker Wazir Baig, Mirza Hussain and technocrat Mutabiat Shah.

A committee of the public representatives had visited different locations in the newly formed district to find suitable place for the head quarter.

Muhammad Ali Akhtar has said that the district headquarter should be ideally established at Harespo Das, in front of Chalt. However, other members of the committee have said that such an act is likely to benefit only a small chunk of the district’s total population.

According to a media report government officials had termed Aliabad and Karimabad to be favorite places for establishment of the head quarter. However, due to lack of land these two locations may not be highly feasible.


About Pamir Times

Pamir Times is a multi-lingual news portal operational since October 2007.
This entry was posted in Pakistan and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to Hunza – Nagar district headquarter, 3 options finalized

  1. Murtaza Mughal says:

    The people of Hunza-Nager wonder how their elected representatives are arrogant and irresponsible. They’ve no fear of God and the poor public. The location, they’ve proposed for district headquarters in Nager is not easily accessible for the masses. What about the people of Bar, Chaprote, Chalt, Shinaki area in Hunza, Shimshal, Chipursan and far-flung areas in Upper Hunza? Could these poor masses bear the heavy transportation charges from KKH to these areas? The best possible area for the headquarters is either Dongdas (Nager) or Nasirabad (Shinaki-Hunza), where hundreds hectares of land is easily available for construction of district headquarters and both sites are located on KKH. If the above decision of the committee is finalised, then the future of the above reps is clearly in darkness and the masses and future generation will never forgive for their acts of favourtism. So the committee is reuqested to review their decision.

  2. Pingback: Hunza – Nagar district headquarter, 3 options finalized | Tea Break

  3. Barkat Ali says:

    The term headquarter indicates the spatial positioning and availability of certain important functions and services of any public and private entity. Here district headquarter denotes a place where functional unit of public administration of district is located accommodating various district public offices concerning with the life of its citizens. The purpose of establishing these various public offices is to benefit the entire population living with in a boundary of an administrative unit in a maximum way by bringing political and administrative contacts and services closer to the local people. Globally, this transfer of responsibilities from a higher administrative unit to the lower one is regarded as the most effective ways to deal with the local problems with a better insight and identification of appropriate solutions involving the local people. But unfortunately in our country in general and Gilgit Baltistan in particular this subsidiarity principle has seen with negative fallouts not because of the fault of the concept but poor planning and decision making approached that planners and decision makers employ. Most often in these kinds of decisions, personal or group interests, sectarian pressure and vision deficiency dominate over common interest, impartiality and maximum benefits.
    Planning is a process of choosing the most appropriate actions and their organization in the best possible way to achieve the desired objectives but I am sorry to say that I don’t see any planning process that was applied in the GBLA Committee’s decision regarding location of headquarter of district Hunza-Nagar. Planning is done there where you have some goal and objectives to achieve but actually here, unfortunately it is seen as simply a matter of construction of some offices. Obviously all the members have gone through heated discussions but I am sure that there would not have been any comprehensive work carried out about this decision. Comprehensive work mean sharing the district plans, taking the opinions of various segments of the both valleys, specially educated youth and veteran & visionary people, negotiations at various levels, identification of alternatives and selection of the best one on a criteria with high consideration of long-term benefits.
    I have no personal grudges with the people of the mentioned locations who definitely deserve the attention of our political leaders and development organizations to play their active role to improve their quality of life. But I have concerns on the decision that has been made. Such decisions should be made not on the basis of who is benefiting less or who is much but it should be based on a vision for the region. A vision that should encapsulate highest social and economic benefits would be available easily to the entire population living in this district. I would suggest and request the authorities to go for a location which is appropriate: availability of land, minimum cost needed to establish because in future there would be issues of funds and it should not take ten years to complete, availability of raw material, least vulnerable to various natural risks like floods, sliding and so on, easily accessible: time, peoples’ connectivity to the main road, availability of various means of transport and infrastructure to reach, and capacity to pay the transport costs and availability of all facilities at one place (if not all at least most important ones) and with less opportunity costs (can be negotiated with the stakeholders and mobilized if initiated with a good intension) and maximum attainment (spill over and multiplier effects). It should not be treated as bread or a cake that every one should get a piece. There should be sincere efforts to establish these offices keeping the above discussed points in consideration particularly ensuring the easy access for those people who are living in remote valleys, have poor access that means they will have to pay high, even more when these offices would be located in different places or at one corner of the region.

  4. sajidbarcha says:

    Hunza-Nagar is not a symmetry or a circle so wherever you make the HQ there is bound to be some population which is farthest from it. accept that and move on

  5. Mr. Toojik says:

    Dear and Respected All,
    Decisions are categorized- very easy, medium, difficult and very difficult. I am of the opinion that I see it in between the difficult and medium. I read both the suggestion and a glance at the report. Very argue point highlighted is the benefits of the people. I just based on these five points try to give it a final decision in my capacity and endorsed to the committee for final decision:

    1. Easily excess to people.
    2. Availability of land.
    3. Funds
    4. Availability of civil engineering construction materials.
    5. Least vulnerable to various natural risks.

    Now based on these five points we can develop a decision matrix based on the priority as here I developed according to my understanding, knowledge and experience:
    • 9—————————————- for—————— 1,
    • 8——————————————— for————- 2,
    • 7 —————————————–for—————– 3,
    • 6 ——————————————–for ————–4,
    • 5 ——————————————-for————- -5,

    By the mathematic interpolation principles we can give it a final decision-which of the areas is

    1. Most feasible,
    2. More feasible,
    3. Very feasible
    4. Feasible.
    On developing the decision matrix the final decision comes very correctly and scientifically.
    ——————-FINAL DECISION COULD BE SHARED IF THE COMMITTEE REQUIRED—————-
    SPECIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS:

    1. Distances could be count from KM. (Most prefer location would be the centre of the District)
    2. Land availability can be measured at the proposed site, construction materials as well.
    3. Funds presently reserved with area of land for the present and at least planning for extensions of 50 years.
    4. The fifth can be deicide from the past history.

  6. karamatullah says:

    The best place for is Dhouney DAS easly Acess for all, so the thinks tank should think for the entire people.
    The people should have easily access and settlement should be away from the residential area.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s