2012,04,24



Objectively, this is not a situation in Balochistan only; most of the post-colonial states either have faced this sort of a problem or are still facing it
Balochistan is Pakistan's restive province, where a movement for the right to self-determination and independence is going on since 1948. Last month in a hearing of a US Congressional Committee on foreign affairs, focusing on Pakistan, at least five members of the US congress belonging to both the Republican and Democratic parties supported the demands of the Baloch. That led to a war of words between Islamabad and Washington. Pakistani spin-doctors came out to defend the state establishment, blaming the US for interfering in Pakistan's internal matter, which they considered as an attack on its sovereignty. Contrary to the Pakistani state establishment, the Baloch welcomed the attention paid by the US and the international human rights organisations to their plight.

Who is right and who is not and what is happening and what is not, would take pages after pages to discuss, argue and counter-argue, with no conclusion. However, of course, one thing everyone, including the establishment's spin-doctors, has to accept is that the Baloch have tons of real grievances against their state. People from that region have fought five real wars against the Pakistani army and are still at virtual war with the establishment. The separatists' leaders from that region never miss a chance to express anti-Pakistan sentiments from any platform they get. They want to have a sovereign Balochistan by taking the province out of Pakistan.

Objectively, this is not a situation in Balochistan only; most of the post-colonial states either have faced this sort of a problem or are still facing it. The reason for this is what Hamza Alvi said, "Overdeveloped state, underdeveloped civil society." The colonial states after their independence came out with hefty promises but failed to fulfil them, which led people to rise against their ruling elite. Also at that time, the decision to choose people's nationality was forced upon them by the colonial powers and the colonised native elite, without any consideration given to their choices. As independent countries came into being, the responsibility to build a nation fell on the shoulders of the ‘constructed' majority, who took minorities for granted and instead of addressing their grievances, carried out atrocities to silence their voices. A lucky few, after making sacrifices and with the help of outside powers, got independence - erstwhile East Pakistan and now Bangladesh is a good example.

Coming to Balochistan, what options does the Pakistan government have to address the current impasse there? The incumbent government has done the right thing by formulating the 18th amendment to the Pakistani constitution, which has granted provincial autonomy by devolving 39 concurrent subjects to the provinces. Also under the National Finance Commission (NFC) Award, the share of Balochistan in the national resources has been raised to 10 percent from 4.3 percent. These are positive steps but not sufficient to address the decades-old grievances of the Baloch against their ruling elite.

That would require a tremendous amount of psychological and physical redress to the persistent anti-state feelings in the minds and hearts of the Baloch. The crimes carried out by anyone on anyone's instruction must be taken seriously and the guilty must be punished for his crime. The Baloch are still seeking justice for the lady doctor who was raped by an army officer posted in the Sui area. That was just one reported case; many cases remain unreported and unknown, and justice remains elusive.

There is a concept of demographic change to resolve crises like this one - by settling people from the so-called mainland to the disturbed areas. This tactic is used by almost all states to check the growing anti-state feeling in disturbed areas. This should be stopped and let people maintain their uniqueness and enjoy cultural autonomy, without any sort of intervention from outside. They must be granted extra rights and should be protected at every cost by the state establishment. Constitutional arrangements concerning disturbed areas in India can be studied by Pakistan. Although problems have not been fully resolved through those arrangements, they are still useful in addressing and redressing people's grievances to some extent.

The presence of the armed forces in the streets makes the people of that region feel unsafe because they have a psychological fear of men in uniform. The better option is that the armed forces are removed from that area, giving people a sense of relief from having guns pointed at their heads. It is the responsibility of the federal government to provide security to its citizens and not to compel them to leave their homes out of fear.

The onus also lies on the leaders who are heading the secessionist movement to change their political demands. Instead of separation, it makes more sense if they focus on leading people to demand more autonomy and more viable economic packages from the government. They must acknowledge the fact that the last six decades of fighting has given nothing but suffering to their own people. Notwithstanding that ‘self-determination' and ‘independence' are beautiful words to conceptualise and debate, but in reality, they are very difficult to follow up on practically. External forces seldom support the secessionists unless they have their self-interest in doing so. In today's world, it is seemingly impossible to carve out an independent country from a geographically contiguous area. The former Yugoslavia's case is an exception because the US, due to its vested interest and under a cold war hangover, was ready to leave no stone unturned to weaken members of the erstwhile eastern bloc.

To conclude, both the Pakistani state establishment and the separatist forces must sit together and try to resolve this decades-old problem in Pakistan. People's pain needs a soothing balm, not bullets.

The writer is a PhD student at the South Asian Studies School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University.

amitranjan.jnu@gmail.com


_______________

2012,04,22

Baluchistan: In The Shadow Of The Gun I

by Mir Mohammad Ali Talpur

The state's brutal kill and dump policy seems justified to him. He half-heartedly admits, "No one denies the fact that targeted killings of the Baloch are taking place, that people are being picked up and that state actors are involved in the killing and the disappearances."
During the 1973-1977 army action in conflict zones, thousands of innocent people were killed, tens of thousands were internally displaced

Mr Ikram Sehgal's "Of Empire and Army" (Newsline, March 2012) is a bundle of misinformation and bias against the Baloch. Perturbed that the media holds the security establishment solely responsible for the Balochistan crisis, he claims, "Most of our problems stem from jumping to conclusions that are based on misinformation, and then deliberately distorting those half-truths to suit mass perception." He feels, "Disproportionate media projection of the separatist leaders encourages ethnic divisions and violence." He probably thinks the Baloch struggle and the atrocities by the state are a figment of the media's imagination.

The state's brutal kill and dump policy seems justified to him. He half-heartedly admits, "No one denies the fact that targeted killings of the Baloch are taking place, that people are being picked up and that state actors are involved in the killing and the disappearances." Then he offers a lame justification that "sons of the soil" are killing an equal number of settlers. Balochistan Home Department's recent report said that the majority of the ones killed are ethnic Baloch.

Sehgal tells us that on December 29, 1973, as his son was being born in Karachi, his company came under heavy fire from Marri insurgents near Kahan, after the dismissal of Ataullah's representative government. The Baloch considered them aggressors rightly, and could not be expected to throw a party. He then says, "Throughout that year, many soldiers were martyred and several injured," and adds, "In one instance, the insurgents beheaded 19 of our soldiers."

Well, I too was in the Marri area with the Baloch nationalists then and assuredly, the Marris never indulged in such abhorrent practices. His claim defies reason as no guerilla could possibly have time to ambush and behead soldiers. Ambushes invite response and with helicopters, jets and motorised transportation at the army's disposal, only fools would linger after an ambush.

The columnist adds that the army could have retaliated against the Marris in kind but relented because they understood that their Sardar (tribal chief), who was living comfortably in Kabul, misguided the Marris. Incidentally, Sardar Khair Baksh Marri and other Baloch leaders, including Sardar Ataullah Mengal, were in jail until 1978. He blames the media for misinformation and distortion. During the 1973-1977 army action in conflict zones, thousands of innocent people were killed, tens of thousands were internally displaced, social and economic life was disrupted, flocks were stolen, crops destroyed, and the entire Balochistan was terrorised. Eight persons, whom I knew personally, including my dear friend, Daleep Dass, aka Johnny Dass, went missing, never to be heard of again. Sher Muhammad Aliani - a sept, an elder, a septuagenarian - was picked up because of an ambush in the vicinity of his settlement near Kahan; his brutally tortured corpse was later recovered. Murad Khan Ramkani of Tadri too was similarly killed. The valiant Asadullah Mengal and Ahmed Shah Kurd were abducted and killed in Karachi. The examples of the ‘consideration' shown are too numerous to note.

Talking about population and tribes, Sehgal says that Punjab and Sindh have more Baloch than Balochistan. Let us not forget, Dera Ghazi Khan with its tribal areas was annexed to Punjab in 1950, hence the increase in Baloch population in Punjab. He seems very upset about the discontinuation of appointing of Pashtun governors. The imported ‘Viceroys' only exacerbated inter-ethnic tensions. Owais Ghani reigned when Sardar Akbar Bugti was killed.

Sehgal shows his bias against the Baloch and sardars by repeating a patently fictitious story that some of the proud Baloch sardars of yesteryears carried Colonel Sandeman on a litter on their shoulders for many scores of miles from the Punjab into Balochistan. Oddly, neither a Sardar is named nor the place. The best way to malign someone is to spread unsubstantiated tales knowing that prejudices will do the rest and clearly, any lie about the Baloch is readily believed here. Moreover, this story would make you believe that the British had no horses to transport Sandeman; they were not like Pakistanis who would send a rundown ambulance, without a spare tyre, to bring a terminally sick Jinnah from the airport.

Exposing his ‘prejudice' against the present nationalist leaders, Sehgal says, "It is ironic that a small militant minority, led by descendants of some cruel and despotic Sardars, speak about "democracy and independence". His other grouse is, "The Baloch now protest against the presence of army cantonments but they did not protest when the British built the biggest cantonment in British India after Agra in Quetta in the early 1900s." I wonder what he would say about those who loyally served the British and docilely submitted to a 50-year long Khalsa (Sikh) rule. No one resisted the sacrilege of Badshahi Masjid in Lahore being used as a stable by Ranjit Singh. Syed Ahmed Shaheed had to come from Bareli to resist Sikh rule. Ironically, the stuffed remains of Ranjit Singh's favourite mare Alif Laila, sketched as Laili by Emily Eden, adorns the Lahore Museum. He remembers "cruel and despotic Sardars'" imagined lapses, but forgets the past of present defenders and leaders of the Ummah. He selectively remembers some and overlooks other inconvenient facts.

Sehgal says that the Baloch Sardars submitted to humiliating British terms regarding heirs, but he probably does not know that the Marris defeated the British in the Battle of Sartaaf and Nafusk in 1839; Mir Mehrab Khan, the Khan of Kalat, died defending Kalat. In 1917, the Marris refused recruits for World War I and chose to battle with their flintlocks and swords against British machine guns at Gumbaz and Harab; none except the Marris in the subcontinent refused. The Baloch have an illustrious history of resisting the British, while others except Tipu Sultan, submitted meekly.

‘Submission' of some Sardars to Sandeman is an unpardonable and abhorrent crime for him but meek acquiescence of entire peoples and regions in the subcontinent to Khalsa Raj and British rule do not seem to ruffle his feathers. He alleges that, "There is now a very deliberate attempt to create a perception of non-Baloch hegemony. The fact remains that the present political and administrative leadership comprises of the native Baloch." He fails to realise that this perception has solid reasons. The army and the Frontier Corps (FC) from Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa have a complete disregard for Baloch sensitivities, and as far as the corrupt native Baloch political leadership is concerned, they have stated on record, repeatedly, that the FC runs a parallel government in Balochistan.

(To be continued)


2012,04,22

Baluchistan: In The Shadow Of The Gun II
by Mir Mohammad Ali Talpur

The evil nexus between state-sponsored terrorism and corruption is used for depriving the Baloch people of their resources and rights
The Sardars embezzling money meant for development purposes are in league with the government. The evil nexus between state-sponsored terrorism and corruption is used for depriving the Baloch people of their resources and rights

Ikram Sehgal in "Of Empire and Army" says, "There has been a Baloch president and a Baloch prime minister. During their time in office, none of the Baloch nawabs and sardars made any effort to ameliorate the conditions of their own people." He forgets that the establishment ‘accommodates' only those Baloch who connive in denying the Baloch people their rights. The ‘establishment' as a quid pro quo turns a blind eye to excesses and corruption. It now even encourages them to fight a ‘dirty war' against the nationalists. The ordinary Baloch suffers injustices from both the Centre and its local agents; this has reinforced the perception of non-Baloch hegemony. The only representative government of Sardar Ataullah Mengal, which presented the bill to abolish the Sardari system on July 8, 1972, and worked for Baloch rights, was dismissed after nine months. Amelioration of conditions was not tolerated.

Sehgal says ‘the three ‘nawabs' of the Baloch, now agitating for ‘independence', have at one time or the other ‘taken oath of allegiance to Pakistan'. This he thinks obligates their submission to the federation. Mr Jinnah presented Kalat's memorandum supporting its independence to the Cabinet Mission in May 1946, but did not feel honour bound when in March 1948, he ordered troops into Kalat. Incidentally, Sardar Khair Baksh Marri has neither held office nor signed the 1973 constitution; his son Mir Balach Khan swore allegiance to Balochistan in Balochi in the provincial assembly.

"The incongruity of it all is that the military wants democracy for the Baloch people, but has not been able to translate its objectives into practice. This can only be achieved under a democratic dispensation, which must obtain freedom for the Baloch from its cruel depraved rulers, who hold the power of life and death over them and their children," Sehgal pontificates. He seems oblivious to history, for if militaries gave way to democracy, they would have in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s in Latin America. Atrocities in Bangladesh and now in Balochistan would never have happened. Presently the Baloch are being killed, dumped and oppressed by state institutions and it is these institutions that illegally exercise ‘power of life and death' over them and it is from them that the Baloch strive to obtain freedom. Now the Baloch are tired of living in the shadow of the gun.

Another allegation is, "The ‘democracy' that the feudal lords espouse is limited to their own version of despotic rule," but forgets that the same and more holds true for the democracy that the military envisages for the Baloch. He also forgets that these ‘cruel depraved rulers' are not ‘the three ‘nawabs' but are the obsequious Sardars at the beck and call of the establishment, assisting it in its dirty war against the Baloch people. The Sardars embezzling money meant for development purposes are in league with the government. The evil nexus between state-sponsored terrorism and corruption is used for depriving the Baloch people of their resources and rights.

Expressing sympathy and blaming feudalism, the writer says, "The Baloch must be taken out of their life of deprivation and want," but conveniently forgets that mostly the military has been in power in that province. The present situation was precipitated by Musharraf who, recently, brazenly advocated more Baloch repression. He forgets that the precious little that Pakistan receives as aid is devoted to the military. Two years ago, Fakharuddin G Ibrahim said, "During the last 30 years, Rs 178.3 billion had been spent on education and Rs 98 billion on health while, on the other hand, around Rs 2,835 billion had been consumed on defence alone." Interestingly, combined health and education expenditure in three decades is a little more than half of defence expenditure in 2010-11 alone. The remainder is devoured by politicians and bureaucrats. This policy of beg and spend for the military is overlooked as the real reason for backwardness here.

The article claims, "The tribal sardars living in self-imposed exile breathe fire against the state in the media but do not represent the majority of the ethnic Baloch nor the vast majority of the non-Baloch who populate Balochistan today." He is absolutely wrong, for had not the majority of the Baloch supported the ‘fire breathing Sardars' since 1947, the demand for freedom would have petered out long ago. Moreover, the non-tribal areas of Makran would not have become the hotbed of struggle that they are today.

Sehgal says, "Kill and dump, is certainly not the answer to Balochistan's problem. Indeed, such acts should be condemned unequivocally." Then in the same breath he justifies it with: "But what is the Frontier Corps (FC), who are tasked with defending critical socio-economic installations like gas pipelines and electric transmission towers that are regularly being blown up, expected to do when they are attacked violently?" And how does he expect a brave and proud nation to act against those they see as aggressors and the reason for their plight? Certainly, they would not be garlanding FC soldiers and installations.

Demanding exclusion of the Sardars from negotiations, Ikram says, "To negotiate with the hereditary rulers and their hired guns, who represent only a minority of the population, is tantamount to condemning the people to continued slavery. Compromising the basic tenets of society at the point of a gun will prove fatal for the federation." He is more worried about the federation than the Baloch people, who any way are incidental and secondary in his scheme of things. Why should he expect the Baloch to submit to exploitation and negotiations at gunpoint? The Baloch too will not negotiate in the shadow of the gun, and moreover, without the "hereditary rulers and their hired guns", no dialogue is going to be of any use.

Ikram Sehgal should understand that the Baloch struggle represents the political will of the people and is not fuelled by hidden hands. It will continue in spite of ever-increasing brutal repression because the Baloch have understood that their repression and exploitation is not by rogue elements but is a well thought out policy of the state to permanently deprive them of their rights on lame excuses of ‘national interests'. The Baloch struggle to put an end to the reign of the gun certainly is not going to vanish simply because Mr Sehgal or the government does not like it.

(Concluded)



The writer has an association with the Baloch rights movement going back to the early 1970s.

mmatalpur@gmail.com





Source: http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp page=2012\04\22\story_22-4-2012_pg3_2




__________________________________________________ ________

2012,04,18

Balochistan: Time for a ceasefire and political settlement
By Peter Tatchell, human rights campaigner

Proposals for military de-escalation & a referendum on self-determination
The case for a negotiated political settlement in Pakistani-annexed and occupied Balochistan is overwhelming. The Baloch people have a right to live without persecution and to decide their own destiny. History is on their side.
Much of what now constitutes Balochistan was a self-governing British Protectorate from 1876. The Baloch people secured their independence from Britain in 1947. The following year, they were invaded and incorporated into Pakistan. They did not vote for incorporation. Their consent was neither sought nor given.
For more than six decades, Balochistan has been under Pakistani military occupation. Although all five major nationalist rebellions have been suppressed by Islamabad, this has not extinguished the desire of the Baloch people to determine their own future. On the contrary. Pakistan's ruthless brutality has increased support for outright independence.
This has prompted even greater Pakistani repression. In the last two years, the extra-judicial killing of Baloch activists has intensified, despite public claims by the Pakistani government and security forces that they have been curtailed.
Indeed, a new death squad has emerged, Tehreek-e-Nefaz-e-Aman Balochistan (TNAB); apparently with the collision of Pakistan's intelligence and military agencies.
According to the Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC), in January this year alone the bullet-riddled bodies of 23 nationalist sympathisers were discovered in Balochistan, with six of these killings being claimed by TNAB.
From August 2011 to January 2012, 56 Baloch activists are known to have been murdered and dumped on roadsides.
The total number of extra-judicial killings since July 2010 is at least 271, reports the AHRC.
These escalating human rights abuses in Balochistan are also independently corroborated by the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. These organisations have documented not only extra-judicial killings but also the Pakistani security forces widespread resort to kidnapping, disappearances, torture and detention without trial. They offer strong evidence that the police, army, ISI and Frontier Corps are complicit in atrocities that amount to crimes against humanity, which are illegal under international law.
Some Baloch campaigners are urging the International Criminal Court to issue arrest warrants and put on trial key Pakistani political, intelligence and military leaders, including the former dictator president, Pervez Musharraf, who allegedly authorised indiscriminate air strikes against defenceless Baloch villages.
In the meantime, they want the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navi Pillay, to head a UN fact-finding mission to Balochistan; in order to ensure that the atrocities committed by Pakistan are subject to independent international scrutiny and documentation.
The UN also has a crucial role to play in facilitating a military ceasefire and a negotiated political settlement.
While this is important for the long-suffering people of Balochistan, it is also important for the Pakistani government. The human rights abuses in Balochistan are causing huge damage to Islamabad's international reputation. The military occupation of Balochistan is costing Pakistan millions. It is a financial drain on the economy. The vast sums of money spent on military garrisons and operations would be better spent on health and education.
However, the most fundamental and important issue is the right to self-determination of the Baloch people. This principle of self-determination is enshrined in the UN Charter and has been applied to secure the statehood of new emergent nations, from Slovenia to East Timor and South Sudan. Why not Balochistan?
Pakistan can delay Balochistan's right to self-determination - at great financial, moral, political, military and reputational cost - but the right of the people Balochistan to decide their own future cannot be denied forever. History shows that no amount of repression can hold back a people who yearn to be free. Ultimately, justice will triumph. It is therefore in Islamabad's interest to secure a lasting political solution.
Last month, at the invitation of Baloch nationalists and human rights defenders, I spoke at a forum held at the UN in Geneva during the 19th session of the UN Human Rights Council. My fellow speakers included the Pakistani author Tarek Fatah and the Baloch campaigners Mehran Baluch and Noordin Mengal. I supported their affirmation of the right to self-determination.
The big challenge that Baloch campaigners now face is how to achieve this goal.
While the terms and conditions of a peace deal must be decided by the people of Balochistan, in consultation with Baloch activists I have suggested the following six-point programme to deescalate the conflict and secure a negotiated political settlement:
Ceasefire and the cessation of all military operations, withdrawal of Pakistani troops and paramilitaries to barracks and a halt to the construction of new military bases and outposts - with independent monitoring and supervision by UN observers and peace-keepers.
Release of all political prisoners and a full account of the fate of all disappeared persons.
Open access to all parts of Balochistan for journalists, aid agencies and human rights organisations.
Right of return of displaced refugees, restoration of their property and compensation for losses caused by the conflict.
End inward colonisation of Balochistan by non-Baloch settlers.
UN-supervised referendum on self-determination, including the option of independence.
I reiterate that these are proposals for consideration and debate; with any final decisions being a matter for the people of Balochistan - hopefully with the support of their friends and allies in Pakistan. Six decades of conflict and repression is enough. It's time to talk peace, with justice.


Peter Tatchell is Director of the Peter Tatchell Foundation. For further articles by him about Balochistan: http://www.petertatchell.net/interna...stan/index.htm

Publisher: sr

__________________
To succeed,look at things not as they are,but as they can be.:)