Phantom rulers

By Iqbal Jafar
April 03, 2012

WHO are the real rulers of Pakistan? Politicians? Bureaucrats? Feudals? The military? The question is not easy to answer mainly for the reason that none of the nominees for the award accepts being the ruler of Pakistan.

This confers upon Pakistan the unique distinction of being the only country where no person, party, group or class is willing to be recognised as its ruler. Undaunted, many historians, reporters, columnists, talk-show hosts and guests, local researchers and foreign spies, have been at it for quite sometime, but the mystery remains unsolved.

In the course of the search for the persons ruling this country incognito, many have given up, some have died, disappeared, been silenced, or have had their head shaven for being dense.

Ordinary citizens can hardly ever locate the `government` to get their problems addressed by the `competent authority`. On the other hand, functionaries, envoys and missions of foreign powers operating in the region are never quite sure who to negotiate with, so they talk to everybody from those perched on the hill top to those hunkering down in the plains.

This ridiculous situation had often been a source of much fun, but it has now ceased to be funny, especially in the context of Balochistan that burns and smoulders while disclaimers about who rules it have become more insistent and shrill.

The federal and the provincial governments, the military and the paramilitary, the police and the intelligence, have all denied having anything to do with the repressive measures, including the killing and kidnapping of the Baloch nationalists and political activists. In the face of these disclaimers who do we look for? Ghosts, apparitions, phantoms? Not just yet, one might say, for some other possibilities too have been suggested. According to one view, popularised bythe super-patriots, the unrest in Balochistan is being fomented as part of a bigger conspiracy by some foreign powers to break up Pakistan. One can agree or disagree with this assumption only by making yet another assumption, for there is little evidence, at least in the public`s knowledge, to prove or disprove the alleged intervention by foreign power or powers.

Granted though that anything is possible in geopolitical games, one cannot ignore the fact that the assumption regarding the so-called `foreign hands` remains unfounded, for no foreign spies, agents oroperatives have ever been caught or killed during all these years of insurgency in Balochistan, whereas hundreds of Baloch nationalists and political activists have been killed duringthe presentphase ofinsurgency.

Consider also the fact, even if there are any foreign spies or agents operating in Balochistan, they would only be supporting an already existing insurgency. The story of Baloch disaffection with Pakistan goes as far back as May 1948. The problemis not who started or supports the insurgency in Balochistan, but what to do with the phantom rulers of Pakistan who don`t seem inclined to either eliminate the foreign hands or pacify local ones.

Next, let us consider the theoretical arguments, based on deduction or the process of elimination, in support of the proposition that some foreign power or powers are behind the ongoing insurgency in Balochistan and the Baloch nationalists are working as their tools. The argument is, in fact, a combination of two different arguments that, if put in a loosely syb logistic format, would read as follows: First: foreign enemies are conspiring to break up Pakistan; Baloch nationalists demand separation of Balochistan from Pakistan; therefore, Baloch nationalists are agents of foreign powers. Second: Baloch nationalists and political activists are being killed; the military, paramilitary, and other agencies of the state are not involved in it; therefore, the Baloch nationab ists and political activists are being killed by foreign agents to destabilise Pakistan.

These arguments won`t pass the test of logic but may sound credible, or even acceptable, as a working hypothesis in a political discourse, if taken separately. But if the two arguments are taken together they can only lead to the conclusion that the Baloch nationalists and political activists are being killed by none other than those very foreign agents who are supposed to be busy supporting and inciting the Baloch nationalists to destabilise Pakistan.

Even more absurd would be the other possible conclusion that while one set of foreign hands arms, funds and trains the Baloch nationalists, another set of foreign hands kills or kidnaps them.

Can it be that those who keep repeating these arguments almost on a daily basis actually believe in the truth of these arguments and assumptions? Do they actually believe that the Baloch, who have been at odds with the state apparatus for the last 65 years, have no good reason to feel ignored, exploited and disinherited? One hopes that the false assumptions and arguments do not deceive the deceivers, as it sometimes happens, and the truth finally prevails.

Where should we go from here? In the first place the phantom rulers of Pakistan should step out of the fog of anonymity and take charge of the affairs of the state in accordance with the popular mandate, and the parameters laid down by the constitution.

Next, to initiate the process of healing, reconciliation and restoration of order in Balochistan, what needs to be done is for the supreme commander to summon a meeting of his commanders and discuss Balochistan for as long as it takes to reach a meaningful consensus on the future course. Together they must deliver the nation from the agony of paralytic inaction and stop this march of folly.

The writer is a former bureaucrat.

igjafar@gmail.com