Given the history of the rebellious uprisings in Balochistan, the Pakistan government must talk with the estranged Baloch leaders without further delay.
Ambassador M. Alam Brohi
The 26 August, the death anniversary of the slain Baloch leader Sardar Akbar Bugti, witnessed mayhem showcasing the intensity of the insurgency in Balochistan. The Balochistan issue has been misunderstood or deliberately underestimated both by civil and military bureaucrats and the political leadership basking under the sunshine of the establishment. The National Defence University Course participants of 2002-2003 were taken on a trip to Balochistan.
In Quetta, we asked the Commander of the Frontier Constabulary, after his presentation, how he was planning to handle Sardar Akbar Bugti. “I am just waiting for my orders from Islamabad either to capture or kill him.” We were shocked by the Commander’s audaciously arrogant and disdaining answer.
The press conference of the Minister for Interior along with the Chief Minister of Balochistan in Quetta after the bloodletting of 26 August painfully reminded me of the above episode when he stated with the same streak of disdain that one SHO of police was sufficient to deal with the insurgents. There has been no change in the mindset in the last two decades. The powerful quarters, even today, believe in the military solution to the issue. The Bugti issue could have been politically resolved as suggested by the Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain Committee report. The then President Pervaiz Musharraf appointed the committee.
Read: How free Balochistan became Pakistan’s biggest province that it now risks losing
Our rulers should reckon that four ethno-cultural nations came together to create Pakistan. It is not the vice versa. Pakistan is a federal and not a unitary state. We are a heterogeneous nation rather than a homogenous one constituted by four ethnolinguistic and cultural sub-nations. These national constituents could be kept together by a constitutional and democratic dispensation in which they feel genuine and equal stakeholders. Reckoning these facts would help us understand and respect the sensitivities and sensibilities of the people of any federating sub-nation, let alone Balochistan – a land of proud, brave, and freedom-loving tribes.
Our rulers should reckon that four ethno-cultural nations came together to create Pakistan. Pakistan is a federal and not a unitary state. We are a heterogeneous nation rather than a homogenous one constituted by four ethno-linguistic and cultural sub-nations.
The Khanate of Kalat was established in 1666 over a vast land mass from Kerman in the west to erstwhile Khangarh (now Jacobabad) in the east, from Helmand River in the north to the Arabian Sea in the south with Karachi exchanging hands between the Khans of Kalat and the Kalhora rulers of Sindh. The Khanate’s territorial boundaries also extended to parts of Dera Ghazi Khan.
The Kingdoms of Iran and the Emirates of Afghanistan clawed away parts of Balochistan during military conflicts spread over centuries. The mid-19th century saw British India getting alarmed by the rapid thrust of Tsarist Russia into Central Asia, prompting the Great Game and compelling the former to adopt a strategic ‘Forward Policy’ to stop the Russians beyond the River Oxus. This policy increased the Empire’s strategic interest in Balochistan and Afghanistan.
Read: Thunders the Desert
Before the Anglo-Afghan war of 1839-1842, the Empire increased military pressure on Balochistan. The Khanate could not face the Empire’s military might and was forced to lease a corridor from Khangarh to Quetta to British India under the treaties of 1838-1840, with the latter undertaking the defence of Balochistan from the west and north. Some Pashtun-speaking districts were carved out of the British NWFP and annexed to Balochistan to balance the Baloch population. However, the Khanate enjoyed full sovereign autonomy.
This was the historical set-up when the British Empire, weakened by the two world wars, decided to leave the Indian sub-continent. After the failure of the Cabinet Mission Plan in March 1946, the British Governor General, in consultation with the stakeholders, devised a scheme of partition. As the sovereign representative of Balochistan, the Khan of Kalat participated in all the deliberations, including the Cabinet Mission Plan, to discuss the future status of his country in the scheme of independence.
As the deadline for independence approached closer, the directly ruled British Balochistan took a different route, with the British nominated council of tribal elders (Shahi Jirga) and Quetta Municipal Council voting to join Pakistan. According to historian Riccardo Redaelli, this occurred because of the failure of the British representatives to decide the return of British-ruled regions in time and the loss of power by the British Government.
However, a new roundtable conference was held on 4 August 1947 to consider the return of the British-controlled regions to the Khanate. Sir Sultan Ahmed, Prime Minister of Kalat State, attended the conference, along with his Chief Secretary and legal expert, I.I. Chundrigar, Lord Mountbatten, Muhammad Ali Jinnah, and Liaquat Ali Khan. The moot point agreed upon was that the Kalat State would be an independent state by 5 August 1947, enjoying the same status as it initially held in 1838.
This standstill agreement, formally announced on 11 August 1947, accepted the formal sovereign status of Balochistan. It stated, “The Government of Pakistan recognizes the status of Kalat as a free and independent State which has bilateral relations with the British Government, and whose rank and position is different from that of other Indian states. The Khan proclaimed the Khanate’s independence on August 15 and scheduled the session of the Dar-ul-Awam in September 1947. The 52-member House voted for independence but did not foreclose a ‘special relationship’ between the independent Kalat and the newly independent state of Pakistan.
The merger of Balochistan was a forced marriage –obviously, as the Baloch nationalists never entertained the merger of their land with Pakistan. This is the sensitivity and sensibility involved in the Balochistan issue, which should have underlined all our dealings with the Baloch.
While the resolution of the British ruling part of his country on accession to Pakistan still remained unchanged, the Pakistan rulers outmaneuvered the Khan by coaxing the Chief of Kharan and Lasbela to announce joining Pakistan. Having received reports about the movement of troops, the Khan announced the merger of his Khanate in Pakistan on March 27, 1948, calling it a “dictate of history.” “I knew I was exceeding the scope of my mandate; had I not taken the immediate step of signing the Kalat merger, the …. British agent to the Governor General could have played havoc by leading Pakistan into fratricidal war against the Baloch people.
Read: Amendment in Indus River System Authority Act: Save Sindh from Ruination
Thus, the merger was a forced marriage –obviously, as the Baloch nationalists never entertained the merger of their land with Pakistan. This is the sensitivity and sensibility involved in the Balochistan issue, which should have underlined all our dealings with the Baloch.
As troops surrounded the Palace of Kalat in April 1948, arresting Khan of Kalat, Mir Ahmed Yar Khan, his younger brother Prince Abdul Karim Baloch raised the flag of rebellion and escaped to Afghanistan. The provincial status of Balochistan was abolished, merging it with West Pakistan in 1954. The tribal chiefs of Brahvi regions (Jhalawan), including octogenarian Nauroz Khan, rebelled and escaped to the mountains fighting against the security forces of Pakistan. They were tricked into a process of reconciliation and arrested. Seven sons and nephews of Nauroz Khan were executed in the Sukkur Jail. He died in jail of distress.
Read: Why brute force will not end Pakistan’s Balochistan insurgency
The One-Unit collapsed in 1969. Forgetting the past, the Baloch leaders joined the mainstream National Awami Party and won enough seats in the 1970 general elections. They formed the provincial government. Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto dismissed their government in July 1973, which triggered the third rebellion. General Zia-ul-Haq ended the military operation after the overthrow of the Bhutto regime in 1977. The assassination of Akbar Bugti in 2006 and his burial under the shadow of guns sparked the current insurgency.
The ruling regimes in Balochistan have not been able to correct the situation, nor have the federal governments shown the courage to embark on a course correction. The current situation in Balochistan is very dismal. There have been proxy wars, bloodletting, target killings, enforced disappearances, and violent clashes as the consequences of the insurgency since 2006. The situation seems to be spiraling out of hand.
The province’s people are no longer enamoured of the old politicians or the new establishment-sponsored leadership. This has been proved repeatedly – may it be the Haq Do Movement in Gwadar or the fast-swelling public following of Dr. Mahrang Baloch and her women comrades. We have just witnessed their power of mass popularity, gathering hundreds of thousands in Gwadar and Panjgur despite all odds. This signifies the rapid shift of the political power towards the young generation in the province, which is ominous in the current intensifying geo-political situation.
Given the history of the rebellious uprisings in the province, Islamabad has to talk with the estranged Baloch leaders without further delay. In the run-up to the initiation of talks, the federal government may like to constitute a broad-based and fully mandated commission with adequate representation from the small provinces to examine Balochistan’s political, economic, and security grievances. This will hammer home the seriousness of the federal authorities about the talks.
Read – Pakistan: Four in One
________________
The author is a former member of the Foreign Service of Pakistan and has served as Ambassador for seven years.
Courtesy: South Asia Magazine (October 2024 Issue)
