No alternative to dialogue

By Kuldip Nayar


I HAD the privilege of meeting Akbar Bugti, the slain Baloch leader, after the birth of Bangladesh and before the Shimla conference. The main purpose of my visit to Pakistan was to interview Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, then the country’s president.

I flew from Islamabad to Quetta at the request of Ghous Bux Bizenjo, then a prominent Baloch leader, to meet Bugti at tea. He had so much to say that the tea appointment stretched to coffee after dinner. I was with him for nearly five hours.

What he said then — I have consulted my notes - was not substantively different from his demand for autonomy more recently. The only difference is that then he repeatedly gave me the example of Bangladesh. Some provinces, he said, could go the same way if Islamabad did not realise that they had their own identity and aspirations which could not be suppressed either by using force or invoking the name of Islam. He wanted more powers and more royalties for natural gas in Balochistan. But he never used the word “separation”.

Bugti said that India should learn a lesson from Pakistan and analyse why Bangladesh became an independent country. Unless New Delhi gave full autonomy to the states, he said, it might endanger its integrity. He suggested that the centre should have only foreign affairs, defence and communications, and transfer all other subjects to the states.

I found Bugti to be a proud Pakistani and, at the same time, a proud Baloch. There was no contradiction between the two. He was less of a hardliner than other Baloch leaders. I was sorry to read words like “miscreant” used by some Pakistani newspapers for Bugti. But then, we in the subcontinent use the worst type of language for our opponents. “Miscreant” is comparatively mild.

Bugti expected India to be generous in the post-Bangladesh agreement. He criticised Bhutto for not letting others have their say. When I told Bhutto what Bugti had said, his remark was: ‘Bugti can have no complaint because he talked to you for nearly five hours, mostly against me, and all that is on tape.’ I believe the misgivings expressed by Bugti and some others made Bhutto incorporate the concept of provincial autonomy in Pakistan’s 1973 constitution.

However, the late Wali Khan of the NWFP told me a few years ago that Bhutto did not implement the undertakings he gave. In this respect, New Delhi’s record is also not too good. It is yet to implement the main recommendations of the Sarkaria Commission on centre-state relations. The centre has, in fact, become stronger after the recent Supreme Court judgment that the Rajya Sabha does not have to have a member residing in the state whose assembly elects him.

Coming back to Bugti’s killing, Islamabad has not handled the situation properly. Which of Pakistan’s neighbouring country is not facing an insurgency? India has been in the midst of military operations in the northeast for several decades. It, too, has tried to sort out political questions through military action but has failed miserably. After burning its fingers, New Delhi has initiated talks with the United Liberation Front of Asom in Assam. It has been negotiating with the Nagas for some years now. Unlike Bugti’s Jamhoori Watan party which wants autonomy within Pakistan, the demand of ULFA and the Nagas is for an independent state.

Take Sri Lanka. It has been facing the LTTE rebellion for many years. Despite taking military action against the LTTE, Colombo has approached New Delhi to put pressure on the LTTE to return to the negotiating table. Nepal, even after suffering at the hands of the monarch, is divided over continuing monarchy and converting the country into a republic. Talks are going on.

Pakistan itself did not reject the option for talks with Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, father of Bangladesh. Islamabad held parleys with him for months and even when he was arrested before the military operation he was imprisoned, not killed. (General Yahya Khan, then the martial law administrator, sentenced the Sheikh to death but Bhutto, who took the reins from Yahya Khan, did not allow the sentence to be carried out.)

The common factor in all the situations is dialogue. Why was Bugti refused talks when he said that Islamabad could converse with the Al Qaeda but not with him? Former Pakistani chief justice Sajjad Ali Shah warned the rulers of Pakistan a few days before the killing of Bugti that the situation in Balochistan was getting out of hand and needed a political, not a military solution.

Maybe, a military-led government hates dialogue with its dissidents. It is afraid of sliding into a situation where give-and-take becomes necessary and a political solution inevitable. Islamabad must realise that about five million people of Baloch ethnic origin are located in three places, primarily in Balochistan in southwestern Pakistan, in southeastern Iran and in the southern tip of Afghanistan. They are disturbed at present.

Whether or not the sardari system which Bugti followed is anachronistic is not the point at issue. If feudalism and landlordism can stay as an integral part of Pakistan society, so can the sardari system. The country’s first priority should be how to return to democracy. The abolition of the sardari system and feudalism can follow. Still, most important is Pakistan’s unity and integrity. This cannot be protected by guns, a point that must be driven home in all South Asian countries. It must be realised that force does not solve any problem. There is no option to a dialogue or “an argument” as Nobel laureate Amartya Sen writes in his book, The Argumentative Indian.

The adverse fallout of happenings in Balochistan is the heightening of rhetoric between Delhi and Islamabad. I cannot understand how the sophisticated foreign offices on both sides can use the type of language they are doing to express their indignation. This is an expression of frustration in reaching nowhere during the unending talks. True, it is none of India’s business to interfere in Pakistan’s internal matters. Still, the outrage against human rights violations cannot be confined to the borders of the country which commits them. In this case, it is the killing of a leader who was known even during the freedom struggle against the British.

The Indian foreign office’s statement condemning Bugti’s killing is in order. But I have not been able to understand what point it was trying to score by making out Balochistan and Pakistan as two separate entities. Both Delhi and Islamabad can abuse each other to their heart’s content as long as they allow people on both sides to meet freely. If ever the two countries bury the hatchet, it would be through people-to-people contact.

Reference: Oipnion, DAWN (2nd Sept, 2006).

true, political disputes should be resolved politically and there is no good solution to these except a dialogue. but whether should a soveriegnity be blackmailed by any one? another question here is"was bugti right in leaving his public life in a way a rebilious leader does?"
also bugti remained top official and held the chiefministership of balochistan as well as governership what had he done for his people to claim for their leadership and support? also wasn't he a vicked sardar upon whose death even his own people have celebrated?
these all questions ask for answers. yet i still believe there is no way trying to solve political matters with force.
another question in the end if mr. nayyar would tell why india is taking pains for his death. after all bugti was a staunch pakistani and its pakistan's internal issue. one may say that india was using bugti for her own motives.

If He was a Proudy Pakistani, then why killed?

Salam.
I think that Bugti no doubt was a leader but in a very wrong direction. when it comes to the pubic at large and state, bugti's activities could not be allowed anymore. He's been rightly killed. He was a leader of traitors. his bng legend was only for his personality his influence but not as a true Pakistani and a leader.

whether anyone believes it or not. Nawab Akbar Khan Bugti has attained the status of a martyr and hero of baloch people.

the only thing that has happened between august 26 till date, is the DAMAGE TO PAKISTAN. bugti was a pakistani, the soldiers who died are also pakistani, the damage to the property of pakistan and rift between nations in pakistan, hatred between pakistanis, weakning of case of punjab as big brother.

i wish we all see this issue as a big loss to pakistani nationhood.

may Allah save Pakistan from another disaster

Roshini how come you say he was rightly killed!!!
If he was so charismatic it was because people turned to him for their needs.
Simply if the same people had been empowered socially and economically(by the Center of course) they might have got rid of him already.
To say that he was rightly killed is wrong because more often than not he was willing to talk with Govt. It was the army who seemed trigger-happy and look at how they handled his body.Shame!!

Redressing Balochistan’s grievances

By Shamshad Ahmad Khan


“I have spilt blood? I had to; I shall perhaps shed more, but without anger, and quite simply, because blood-letting is a component of (my) political medicine...I am not a man like other men and the laws of morality or custom cannot be applied to me.” —Napoleon Bonaparte

WILL there be ever an end to tragedies in our country? Shall we ever have a civilized way of dealing with our problems? Why don’t we learn lessons from our traumatic past? Did Pakistan come into being to perennially remain afflicted with a culture of blood and bullet? Are we doomed for ever to our Spartan fate? Don’t the people of Pakistan have any urge to change their destiny?

There could not have been a gloomier scenario for any state in today’s world. Pakistan has been “dismembered” yet again, if not physically, at least emotionally. The murder of Nawab Mohammad Akbar Khan Bugti by Pakistan’s security forces has torn the nation apart. Sardar Akbar Bugti was not a tribal chieftain alone, he was a political leader, a former governor and chief minister of Pakistan’s largest province, a former federal minister, and, above all, the grand old man of Baloch nationalism and a senior citizen of Pakistan.

Bugti’s killing has hit us all very badly. Pakistan is bleeding today. Another tragedy has been enacted on its soil and soul. The nation cannot even mourn its grief and loss. It stands aghast, and agonises in its total helplessness and hopelessness. It fails to understand why the guardians of our independence and territorial integrity are killing the citizens of Pakistan and fighting a war against their own people.

The real test of a leadership always lies in how it handles domestic unrest and violence rooted in despair and disillusionment among its own people, no matter how small their number or who they are. The state is the guardian, not an enemy of its people. The armed forces of a country have no justification, professionally or morally, to kill their own people.

We still remember when ordered to use force against rioters in an anti-government protest in Lahore in 1977, there were senior army officers who refused to do so. Thirty years later, not one “conscience” among our security forces pricked. Indeed, the “culture of violence” has affected all segments and every level of our society including the guardians and the subjects.

We no longer adhere to civilized ways of handling our difficulties and problems. Within ourselves as a nation, in fact, we are all gripped by despair and disillusionment, and are driven in our “demented” behaviour, visible daily on our streets and public places, by fear and frustration, and a combination of what the renowned Muslim thinker, Al-Ghazali had described as four “human flaws”: namely the feral (predatory), the beastly (animal), the diabolic (satanic), and the divine (lordly).

In the ultimate analysis, our chaotic life style today is the product of a broader mix of problems caused by “bad government, opportunistic, illiterate and corrupt politicians, and “militant military leaders” who exploit the grievances of their people for their own survival. Niccolo Machiavelli (1469-1527), the architect of “Pakistan’s governance system” must be jumping in his grave, if there is one anywhere, with elation and delight. Our military rulers have followed his infamous “doctrine of necessity” in letter and spirit.

To gain political power, according to Machiavelli, “it is necessary either to be the child of fortune and be born into power, or to acquire power through deceit and conquest.” Machiavelli was of the view that in “destroying enemies within the state, the ruler must get rid of them decisively without mercy, lest some individual suffering from minor injuries returns to seek revenge.”

Machiavelli’s philosophy of government is premised on the assumption that in the absence of virtuous citizens, there are only “corrupt masses,” and since the end justifies the means, they can be controlled only by a “prince” through his “deceitful and vicious behaviour.” The “prince” has to be “strong and ruthless enough” to rule his subjects. He must have a “hypocritical and vacillating” personality wearing the face of “mercy, faith, integrity, humanity, and religion” to create a public image, but always acting contrary to those very ideals.

This recipe is familiar to our country. Our post-independence history is replete with Machiavellian antics and adventures. In fact, we allowed Machiavelli’s “doctrine of necessity” to circumscribe the supremacy of our Constitution, and opted for systemic aberrations with no parallel in political philosophy or contemporary history.

The sole beneficiary of this system in our country has been the “wilful ruler” who was either “the child of fortune” or was “born into power” or who “acquired power through deceit and force.” We have also been steadfast in following, since our independence, the Machiavellian concept of “elimination” of political opponents through force and violence, and sans mercy.

The list of Pakistan’s eliminated political victims is long and perhaps open-ended. Until now, it includes prime ministers, elected leaders, exiled political rivals, fathers or sons of political leaders, tribal chiefs and maliks and even patriotic citizens.

Questions nevertheless abound about the future of Pakistan. The tragedy enacted in the context of Bugti saga is not something new for our country. We have experienced similar crises earlier also in Balochistan, and woefully, a tragedy of even greater magnitude elsewhere.

In East Pakistan, the problem started with a deep-rooted sense of deprivation and became a politico-constitutional problem with a demand for larger autonomy, leading eventually to the break-up of the country. In 1971, Pakistan lost not only half the country but also the “majority of its Muslim population with the breakaway of its eastern wing in what became the only successful secessionist movement of contemporary history in a newly independent state.”

The people of Pakistan have been following the Balochistan crisis with anxiety and concern and expected the government to show a sense of maturity and circumspection in dealing with the issues involved. In addressing the question of the basic rights of the people of Balochistan, it was always clear that ad hoc approaches and military operations will not do.

The age of colonialism under military occupations is long gone. We thought Kashmir was the only remaining vestige but now we have provided an opportunity to the regional and global stakeholders to exploit the situation in Balochistan to make it a new chapter of this phenomenon. India might start paying us back in the same coins. Didn’t we already have too many problems at hand?

In the post-9/11 scenario, terrorism-related problems afflicting our country have placed us on the global radar screen, giving Pakistan the unenviable distinction of being one of the epochal “frontlines of the war on terror.” The world watches us with anxiety and concern as we seek to correct our image. Our crucial role in this campaign complicates our tasks, both at home and at regional and global levels.

Our problems are further complicated by the complex regional configuration with Americans sitting in Afghanistan, new Indo-US nexus, India’s strategic ascendancy in the region and its unprecedented influence in Afghanistan with serious nuisance potential against Pakistan. Our borders on all sides are no longer peaceful. Domestically, sectarian violence has made Pakistan the worst killing ground of Muslims at the hands of their Muslim “brethren.”

Pakistan is going through one of the most serious crises of its independent statehood. It is being weakened methodically through its ubiquitous engagement on multiple external as well as domestic fronts. Use of military power within a state and against its own people has never been an acceptable norm. Pakistan is the only Muslim country with an on-going military operation against its own people.

Given today’s volatile regional and global environment with Pakistan finding itself in the eye of the storm, one could understand the government’s anxiety to enforce the writ of its constitutional authority in all parts of the country. But instead of resorting to an indiscriminate military action, it should have opted for a political approach through parliamentary dialogue and debate.

Balochistan has long had grievances of injustice which even the governments in Islamabad have acknowledged and promised to address. No one denies that despite its abundance of natural resources, Balochistan remains the most backward province of the country. There has been a strong underlying resentment in this as well as other provinces against what is seen as continued “Punjabi dominance” and inequitable distribution of power and resources.

In East Pakistan also, the problems started with similar deep-rooted sense of deprivation and a feeling of political and economic alienation which over time became a politico-constitutional crisis involving a demand for greater autonomy, and leading eventually to the break-up of the country.

For a country, skip to next pardomestically as unstable and unpredictable as ours, there can be not many choices. In todays world, our options are limited. Our domestic failures have seriously constricted our foreign policy options. In the ultimate analysis, our problems are not external.

Our problems are domestic which need to be addressed politically and by constitutional means. Given our painful experiences, we cannot afford any more tragedies and national debacles. The parliament should have been allowed to play its role and to work out a “consensus package” of political, economic and constitutional measures for redressing the legitimate grievances of the people of Balochistan. Is it too late to do it now?


Reference: Editorial, DAWN. 04 Sept, 2006.

__________________
The world is my oyster!

Balochistan after Akbar Bugti

By Akhtar Payami

ILL the killing of Nawab Akbar Bugti, immediately after the much-publicised jirga, weaken the deeply entrenched and centuries-old tribal structure of society in most of Balochistan? The so-called ‘Bugti Qaumi Jirga’ held at the Jinnah Stadium in Dera Bugti had proudly announced an end of the sardari system in the Bugti tribe. It also expressed its gratitude to the government for “freeing the people from the atrocities” of the former tribal chief.

A resolution adopted by the pro-government Jirga also said that henceforth the laws of the Pakistan government would be followed in the Bugti tribal areas. Another harshly worded resolution asked the Marri and other tribes to hand over Nawab Akbar Bugti and his associates to the Bugti tribe which would deal with them in accordance with the laws of Pakistan. The Jirga also proposed a number of measures for doing away with several abominable practices that have plagued the tribal society.

Akbar Bugti‘s departure from the political scene raises many questions which may continue to haunt the aware citizens in the country for a long time to come. Bugti indeed was a mixed bag. He was dreaded and, at the same time, loved by his tribesmen. The establishment claims that members of the Bugti tribe are rejoicing at his passing away. In the massive military operation against his men, many sophisticated weapons including gunship helicopters were freely used.

The facts, however, tell a different story. Bugtis are mourning his death. In fact, the whole province is in a state of shock over the way the veteran Baloch leader has met his end. There has been protest shutdowns both in the country and Balochistan to register anger over the killing. For a few days since the gruesome incident, life in major towns of the province remained paralysed.

Akbar Bugti’s killing, though the information minister claims he was not the target of the operation, shows that the government has finally decided to ensure that its writ is established in Balochistan’s troubled tribal areas, whatever the cost. It is also evident from the tone of President Musharraf’s August 29 speech in Murree in which he said that he would not allow anyone to harm the country. “Whoever wants to harm Pakistan nationally or internationally would have to fight with me first”, he had warned.

However, the mainstream politicians of all shades of opinion, excluding the PML-Q leaders, have strongly reacted to the tragedy and criticized the manner in which the Balochistan problem was being handled by the incumbent regime. They have refused to buy the official version of the incident. How far-reaching could be the impact of the tragic death of Akbar Bugti on the political life of Balochistan as well as Pakistan can only be felt after some time once the state of shock and anger is over.

One may recall that immediately after the Bugti jirga several tribal elders had not only dissociated themselves from the congregation but also condemned the resolutions passed there, maintaining that the Jirga could not take such momentous decisions.

The people of Balochistan have a litany of grievances — most of them real. The vast landscape in the province is full of many promises and potentials. But it never received the attention it deserved from the successive governments over the decades. All avenues of development were closed to the inhabitants of this province. They remained an isolated lot with no hope of progress and prosperity. Why has it been so and why had the British who ruled India for several centuries never cared to bring this northern tip of the country on par with other parts of the country ? This anomaly may be explained in many ways.

India was never a united country. Before the advent of the British Raj, it was divided and subdivided into several units, some of them being princely states — all headed and managed by independent rulers who had their own armies and ruled without a popular mandate. They were rajas and nawabs and commanded this position through by virtue of inheritance.

The north-western part of the subcontinent did not attract much attention of the alien rulers. They consolidated their position in the rest of the country and made their strongholds in Kolkata and Mumbai. During their stay in this land of opportunities, they introduced a number of social reforms. But they did not take any measure to eradicate the Sardari or the jagirdari system. Instead, they strengthened the system by distributing agricultural and non-agricultural lands among their favourites.

This is how a new class with vested interests came into being . This is how big landlords flourished in Punjab and Sindh. Feudal lords commanded position and authority like divine rulers.

Immediately after independence, East Pakistan got rid of the ‘zamindari’ system. There remained no feudals to rule the common mortals. Some analysts suggest that since land in East Pakistan mostly belonged to the Hindus, the new government hastily ended their ownership. This may have been one of the reasons but was not the prime reason.

Unfortunately a divisive trend had appeared in the social structure of the country from very outset. The unhelpful attitude of the successive governments further widened the gap. The rulers sitting in Islamabad could hardly feel the pulse of the people inhabiting a part of the same country but separated from each other by over a thousand miles of hostile territory.

It may be of some relevance to note that India got rid of this menace of sardari, jagirdari and feudal structures from its society in its initial years of independence. Indeed the first thing that the government of India did was to start working on drafting a constitution of free India and the second was to abolish the princely states and contain landlordism.

On the contrary, instead of demolishing the structure of a backward society, we expanded its area of influence. As a result, most legislators came from the feudal class and the situation remains unchanged. Moreover, many of them had relatives in the army and higher bureaucracy. In effect, they controlled the administration of the country and were the absolute rulers.

The stark truth is that no effort was made at any stage to establish a just social order in the country. Dr Mahbubul Haq‘s famous revelation that 22 families were ruling the country has taken a new form now. Many more families have joined the exclusive club of the rich.

Against this backdrop of total lack of accountability, who would have cared to look at the problems of the common people who were at the beck and call of the sardars. It is amazing to note that while some of the leading sardars are highly educated persons with a fairly wide knowledge of world affairs, they would make no effort to improve the condition of their people. A few of them are also known as having been influenced by Marxism. Their children are receiving education in the prestigious institutions of the West.

But they would not allow any school to be opened in their areas. They would oppose the construction of roads and setting up of industries within their territories. Sitting in their highly protected forts with armed guards holding sophisticated weapons in their hands and watching the hapless pedestrians from their rooftops, they merrily rule the roost.

For a long time, their callous ways of interacting with their tribesmen remained hidden from the public. Thanks to the human rights activists, the stories of their private jails have now come to the surface.

Knowing the limitations of common people and the unbridled ambitions of the feudals, it is not difficult to surmise what would be the fate of the Jirga resolutions. Mr Zulkfikar Ali Bhutto, during his hey day, had announced the abolition of the sardari system. People had heaved a sigh of relief. But in the ultimate analysis it proved to be a false hope. The system not only remained intact; it prospered increasing its viciousness. That Bhutto, being a progressive and popularly elected prime minister, failed to abolish the sardari system defies one’s common sense.

The military government fails to understand the complexity of the problem. Batons do not transform a society which has been nourished on falsehood. If the government is sincere in its effort, it will have to act with a sense of realism. The system in whatever deceptive form it is must be eliminated throughout the country. Any half-way measures cannot bring about any real change. Resolutions alone cannot solve this problem. Every government in Pakistan has tried to pamper the ‘maliks‘ who have been instruments of torture to the people. In the assemblies they always sided with the government. Their support was assured. This assurance had a negative impact on the people.

As things have moved in the wrong direction culminating in the death of Akbar Bugti, the future of Balochistan hangs in the balance.


Reference: Encounter, DAWN. 1st week of Sept 2006.

__________________
The world is my oyster!

The death and the dilemmas

By Riaz Missen

KBAR BUGTI has been killed in a military operation that federal officials insist was conducted on the request of Balochistan government. The issue is seen by the ruling camp in the context of arresting a worsened law and order situation; the opposition views the incident as a reflection of the mindset of the regime which wants to solve political problems through the barrel of gun, whatever the consequences.

General Musharraf and his close aides look at Akbar Bugti’s demise as the removal of a major obstacle in the implementation of their Balochistan agenda; he has vowed to continue the operation against other ‘miscreants’ in the south-western province. A section of the establishment in Islamabad who are seen rejoicing over the regime’s “success” in Balochistan are as much unmindful of the likely consequences of this incident and this policy as were their predecessors in 1971. But many in the ruling camp consider themselves fortunate enough for not having been assigned the responsibility of publicly justifying the murderous assault of the veteran politician of Balochistan.

On this side of the divide are also certain clans of Bugti tribe who had termed the deceased tribal chief as a traitor in an unusual Jirga held only two days before the incident — an intriguing closeness between the two events. Leaders of these clans had announced, on behalf of the tribe, an end of the tribal system in Balochistan, had confiscated property of Akbar Bugti and issued warning to the Marris who were allegedly providing shelter to their absconders. What was the legitimacy of their announcement, they were least bothered about. These clan elders must be feeling relieved by the death of Akbar Bugti, for had he been alive today he would not have spared them and given them exemplary punishment.

On his part Nawab Akbar Bugti was a sardar in the true sense, emotionally wedded to the age-old tribal values. He ensured that he was respected and feared by both friends and enemies. He was known to have killed men on personal pretexts, constructed private jails and tortured his opponents and recalcitrants. As such, he was much different from the other two leading sardars, Khair Bakhsh Marri and Ataullah Mengal who considered themselves more nationalists than mere sardars.

However, in the last days of his life Akbar Bugti was a nationalist par excellence and was determined, at all costs, to prevent Balochistan from being colonised by Punjab and its mineral and coastal resources from being sold to ‘foreigners’. In his recent interviews to some private news channels, he made it clear that the federation will have to face tough resistance and meet more dire consequences than that of 1971 if it did not abandon its militaristic path for resolving the otherwise political issues.

Irrespective of his known ‘hatred’ for Islamabad, his services for Pakistan are a matter of record. He was among those who defeated the forces opposed to the inclusion of Balochistan in Pakistan. He let the country benefit from the oil and gas resources from his personal and tribal property.

Throughout his life he remained willing to find out ways to make Pakistan governable. He never courted the idea of — and took to the path of — separation of Balochistan from Pakistan as has been the slogan of nationalists in his province. Even now he was not ready to buy the blame of treason. Though Islamabad believed he was patronising the so-called Baloch Liberation Army, his only answer to this allegation was that the culprits should be dealt with according to the law and in a befitting manner.

Akbar Bugti was a kind of politician who would have played a key role in resolving the issues that afflict the country and his province. But he was often ignored. Now that he is dead, it is of no use to condemn him for his intransigent attitudes. He defended to his last breath his prestige and honour that he had inherited from his forefathers. He did not accept when he was asked to obey the new rules of the game. He had created a world of his own and lived in it without any fear of interference from the outside. When this world became unlivable, he ‘migrated’ to mountains.

Probably Bugti was too stubborn to reconcile with the emerging realities of national and international politics. It is possible that he could not assess how strong the will of the government was to establish its writ. May be, he was unable to understand the logic behind the centre’s resolve to make industrial use of the tribal belt of Balochistan. Perhaps he could not realise how powerful the corporate world of oil and gas industry was.

As such, General Musharraf is not alone to have found him unacceptable for his ways. There are many who considered him one of the last hurdles in the development of the rich resources of the province. There are also some foreign elements who must be rejoicing over the death of Akbar Bugti, for he did not approve of the Gwadar Port.

Akbar Bugti leaves behind a legacy that is too dangerous for the federation. He has become a hero figure for the nationalists of the country who consider the majority province as the major source and cause of poverty and underdevelopment for the rest of the country.


Reference: Encounter, DAWN. 1st week of Sept 2006.

__________________
The world is my oyster!

I cant understand ,The govt showing too much elasticity in case of India ,behaves in this brutal way to the Pakistanis...Why???
This is only the democracy which can solve the problem..
Army is doing the wrong job...If they dont stop interfering in the natuional affairs they would crtainly have to pay for that ,they would be punished..They will have to go back to their barracks...
Otherwsie ...nothing will be there...

__________________
"If I am right why should I bend, let the other side bend" Quaid e Azam