| Baloch Society Of North America (BSO-NA) Baloch Society Of North America (BSO-NA) is working to unite and Organize all Baloch in North America and to expose the Occupation of our land (Balochistan) and exploitations of our resources by Pakistani and Iranian Governments, and to bring their Human Rights Violations in Balochistan into the world’s Notice. |
| I Home I About BSO-NA I About Balochistan I News and Articles I Letters And Opinion I BSO-NA Membership I BSO-NA Store I Contact us |
Who Are Baloch?
To the neighboring Pushtun tribes, who live in fertile riverine valleys, Baluchistan is "the dump where Allah shot the rubbish of creation. But for the
Baluch, their sense of identity is closely linked to the austere land where they have lived for at least a thousand years. According to the Daptar Sha'ar
{Chronicle of Genealogies), an ancient ballad popular among all seventeen major Baluch tribes, the Baluch and the Kurds were kindred branches
of a tribe that migrated eastwards from Aleppo, in what now is Syria, shortly before the time of Christ in search of fresh pasturelands and water
sources. One school nationalist historians attempts to link this tribe ethnically with the Semitic Chaldean rulers of Babylon, another with the early
Arabs, still others with Aryan tribes originally from Asia Minor. In any case, there is agreement among these historians that the Kurds headed toward
Iraq, Turkey, and northwest Persia, while the Baluch moved In to the coastal areas along the southern shores of the Caspian sea, later migrating
into what are now Iranian Baluchistan and Pakistani Baluchistan between the sixth and fourteenth centuries.
Western historians dismiss the Daptar Sha'ar as nothing more than myth and legend, totally unsubstantiated by verifiable evidence, and it remains
for future scholars to probe into the murky origins of the Baluch. These legends are cited here not because they have serious historiographic value
but because they are widely believed and are thus politically important today. For the most part, Aleppo is a unifying symbol of a common identity in
the historical memories shared by all Baluch. In recent years, however, Arab attempts to attribute Arab ethnic origins to the Baluch have become a
divisive factor in the nationalist movement.
Whatever the authenticity of the Aleppo legends, scholars in Baluchistan and in the West generally agree that the Baluch were living along the
southern shores of the Caspian at the time of Christ. This consensus is based largely on linguistic evidence showing that the Baluchi language is
descended from a lost language linked with the Parthian or Median civilizations, which flourished in the Caspian and adjacent areas in the pre-
Christian era. As one of the oldest living languages, Baluchi is a subject of endless fascination and controversy for linguists. It is classified as a
member of the Iranian group of the Indo-European language family, which includes Farsi (Persian), Pushtu, Baluchi, and Kurdish. Baluchi is closely
related to only one of the members of the Iranian group; Kurdish. In its modern form, it has incorporated borrowings from Persian, Sindhi, Arabic,
and other languages, nonetheless retaining striking peculiarities that can be traced back to its pre-Christian origins. Until150 years ago, the Baluch,
like most nomadic societies, did not have a recorded literature. Initially, Baluch savants used the Persian and Urdu scripts to render Baluchi in
written form. In recent decades, Baluch nationalist intellectuals have evolved a Baluchi script known as Nastaliq, a variant of the Arabic script.
Ethnically, the Baluch are no longer homogeneous, since the original nucleus that migrated from the Caspian has absorbed a variety of disparate
groups along the way. Among these "new" Baluch were displaced tribes from Central Asia, driven southward by the Turkish and Mongol invasions
from the tenth through the thirteenth centuries, and fugitive Arab factions defeated in intra-Arab warfare. Nevertheless, in cultural terms, the Baluch
have been remarkably successful in preserving a distinctive identity in the face of continual pressures from strong cultures in neighboring areas.
Despite the isolation of the scattered pastoral communities in Baluchistan, the Baluchi language and a relatively uniform Baluch folklore tradition
and value system have provided a common denominator for the diverse Baluch tribal groupings scattered over the vast area from the Indus River in
the east to the Iranian province of Kerman in the west. To a great extent, it is the vitality of this ancient cultural heritage that explains the tenacity of the
present demand for the political recognition of Baluch identity. But the strength of Baluch nationalism is also rooted in proud historical memories of
determined resistance against the would-be conquerors who perennially attempted, without success, to annex all or part of Baluchistan to their
adjacent empires.
Reliving their past endlessly in books, magazines, and folk ballads, the Baluch accentuate the positive. They revel in the gory details of ancient
battles against Persians, Turks, Arabs, Tartars, Hindus, and other adversaries, focusing on how valiantly their generals fought rather than on
whether the Baluch won or lost. They point to the heroes who struggled to throw off the yoke of more powerful oppressors and minimize the role of
the quislings who sold out the Baluch cause. Above all, they seek to magnify the achievements of their more successful rulers, contending that the
Baluch were on the verge of consolidating political unity when the British arrived on the scene and applied their policy of divide and rule. This claim
is difficult to sustain with much certainty on the basis of the available evidence. Nevertheless, the Baluch did make several significant attempts to
draw together politically, and their failure to establish an enduring polity in past centuries does not prove that they would fail under the very different
circumstances prevailing today. As Baluch writers argue, given the technologies of modern transportation and communication, the contemporary
Baluch nationalist has new opportunities for cementing Baluch political unity that were not open to his forebears.
From the book
In Afghanistan’s Shadow: Baloch Nationalism and Soviet Temptations By Selig S. Harrison
BALOCHS : Secularism and
Religious Tolerance
Hindus have a friendly status in Baluch society, being leadres of Baloch economic life. In the history of the Khanate, the Finance Ministry was
headed by a local Hindu, and their are examples of a Hindu serving as governor of a province. During the seige of Kalat (1839), Finance Minister
Dewan Bucha Mull, a Hindu, sacrificed his life in the defence of Kalat, along with his master, Mir Mehrab Khan. The Hindu and other minorities
always enjoyed the good will policy of secular Baluch society.
In the late 19th century, when British authorities asked Baluch and Pushtuns how their civil cases should be decided, the Baluch replied: "Rawaj"
(Baluch customary law); the Pushtun answered: "Sharia" (Islamic law).
There is an interesting story which exemplifies the Baluch approach to religion: "Once a Baluch was asked why he did not keep the fast of Ramzan
(Ramadan). Replied the Baluch that he was excused, as his chief was keeping it for him. "What are you doing?" asked a practising Muslim about
his evening prayers. He was answered: "Praying in the fear of God." Rejoined the Baluch: "Come along to my hills where we don't fear anybody."
Religion has played an important role in the rise of some nations, while for others it was rejected as a basis of unity. The nationalists of Belgium
and Ireland used religious matters as a basis for their separation from Holland and Britain respectively, and British India was divided into two state-
nations in 1947 on religious grounds. On the other hand, the Arab nationalists opposed the religious Khilafat headed by Ottoman Turks. (the Khilafat
was a religious and political institution that united the Millat - Muslim Community - under a political banner until 1918). Arab nationalism derives its
force from common geography, history and culture rather than from religion. In 1971, the Muslims of Bangladesh rejected the two-nation theory of
Jinnah, which was based on religion, and formed their own state.
The Baluch people differ from those of Punjab and Sind, and from the Muslims of India in their concept of a religious state. The Baluch regard
reliogion has the individual's private affair.
Befor the advent of Islam, it is believed that the majority of Baluch were Mazdaki and Zorostrians. Today the majority of the Baluch are of the Islamic
faith and belong to the Sunni sect, which is predominant in the Muslim world. Their old war ballads, however, claim that the Baluch were followers of
Caliph Ali, and were therefore originally followers of Shia Islam.
"We are servants of Hazrat Ali, the true Imam of the Faith."
According to tradition the Baluch joined Imam Hussain, against Caliph Yazid. After the murder of Hussain, the Baluch were expelled from Syria nd
Iraq() to Persia. Nothing is known about the causes of their conversion to Sunni Islam. When Iranians embraced Sunni Islam, the Baluch became
Shias, and with the conversion of Iranians to Shia Islam we discover Baluch joining the opposite camp - Sunni Islam. In Western Baluchistan, Sunni
Islam has played an important role in the development of Baluch nationalism, as the Shia branch of Islam in Iran as always had strained relations
with the Baluch. The influence of the Sunni Muslim priest class increased with the Iranian occupation of Western Baluchistan in the 19th century.
The Khanate of Baluchistan allied with the Sunni rulers of Turkey, Mughal India, and Afghanistan against Shia Iran. In the 18th century, Nasir Khan
the Great took part in several campaigns against Iranians in favour of Sunni Afghans.
Besides the Sunni and Zikri Muslims, their had been and are several other religious minorities in the area, such as Hindus, Zoroastrians, Jews, and
Ismailies Khojas.
Hindus have a friendly status in Baluch society, being leadres of Baloch economic life. In the history of the Khanate, the Finance Ministry was
headed by a local Hindu, and their are examples of a Hindu serving as governor of a province. During the seige of Kalat (1839), Finance Minister
Dewan Bucha Mull, a Hindu, sacrificed his life in the defence of Kalat, along with his master, Mir Mehrab Khan. The Hindu and other minorities
always enjoyed the good will policy of secular Baluch society.
In 1947, when the Khanate became an independent sovereign state under the Khanate's constitution, elections were held for the Lower House, Dar-
ul-Awam. The Muslim Baluch population elected five Hindu memebers to the Lower House of the Khanate.
Contrary to the Baluch, the Afghans are orthodox Muslims. During the reign of Amir Abdur-Rahman, Amir of Kabul, the Kafirs (or Kalash tribe) were
converted forceably to Islam and their country was renamed "Nuristan" (the land of light). The Persians did not tolerate Babis or Bahais and Sunnis.
In the Indian subcontinent, Muslim rulers like Aurangzeb adopted a fanatic policy towards Hindus. During the independence movement in 1947,
Hindus of Punjab, Sind and the North West Frontier Province were massacred by their Muslim neighbours. The Hindus inhabiting the Baluch
regions, however, lived in peace and harmony and were protected in the border areas by the Baluch. For instance, when the Ghilzai Pashtuns
attacked the Hindu villages in the Dera Ismail Khan District, it was the Baluch chief, Sardar Abdur-Rahman Khan, Bhani Kulachi (the chief of the
Kolachi tribe) who declared them "Bahut". Under the Baluch code of honour, Bahut is a person or persons who are given asylum by a Baluch and
their protection is a sacred duty of the protector. Several families were saved from the pogroms and then eventually migrated to India in 1947 and
1948.
When the Pakistan government demanded "accession" of the Khanate in 1947-48, on the grounds of Islam being the common religion, this act was
detested and rejected by the Parliament of the Khanate. Mir Ghaus Bakhsh Bizenjo voiced the Baluch opinion against the religious nationalism of
Pakistan: "We are Muslims but it (this fact) did not mean (it is) necessary to lose our independence and to merge with other (nations) because of the
Muslim (faith). If our accession into Pakistan is necessary, being Muslim, then Muslim states of Afghanistan and Iran should also merge with
Pakistan."
E. Oliver has pointed out that Baluch "has less of God in his head and less of the devil in his nature." According to him, "The Afghan is a dangerous
fanatic while the Baluch prefers to have his prayers said for him."
There is an interesting story whish exemplifies the Baluch approach to religion: "Once a Baluch was asked why he did not keep the fast of Ramzan
(Ramadan). Replied the Baluch that he was excused, as his chief was keeping it for him." "What are you doing?" asked a practising Muslim about
his evening prayers. He was answered: "Praying in the fear of God." Rejoined the Baluch: "Come along to my hills where we don't fear any body."
There is a Baluch proverb that "God will not favour a person who does not plunder and rob."
These examples clearly show that the Baluch is completely different from his neighbours like the Pushtun and Punjabi. In the late 19th century,
when British authorities asked Baluch and Pushtuns how their civil cases should be decided, the Baluch replied: "Rawaj" (Baluch customary law);
the Pushtun answered: "Sharia" (Islamic Law).
In 1947, when the Indian subcontinent suffered under the effects of Muslim-Hindu riots, it was only the Baluch society where Hindu minorities
remained untouched and lived in peace; the Baluch were not influenced by their neighbours. Throughout Baluch history, the Baluch people did not
fight religious wars against India, with the exception of Nasir Khan the Great, and the factors behind the Baluch invasion of India under Nasir Khan
the Great were more economic and political than religious.
Source: The Problem of Greater Balochistan, written by Innayatullah Baloch
Baloch nationalism, since its birth
Baluch nationalism, since its birth, has faced the problem of "international" frontiers which divide the Baluch among countries - Pakistan, Iran/and
Afghanistan. The genesis of the problem pre-dates the Perso-Baluch (1871 and 1895-1905), 4 Seistan (1872-1896)(and Baluch-Afghan (1895)
frontiers. The demarcation of these frontiers made the problem more acute and protracted it so that^ with the rise of Baluch nationalism in 193O, the
Baluch were divided between Iran, Afghanistan and what was then British India. For obvious reasons, Pakistan and Iran had a common interest in
suppressing the Baluch claim of self-determination and they have adopted a joint policy for this purpose. Afghanistan did not share the Iranian and
Pakistan policies but stated its own claim for Baluchistan, as part of its demand for Pushtunistan. The Baluch-Afghan line as an international border
is disputed by the Afghans, who regard the frontier with Pakistan as drawn by the British and agreed to by the Afghans only under duress.
To understand the complexity of the issue involved in the division of Baluchistan, it is important to have some understanding of the historical
circumstances involved. The strategic position of Baluchistan, Iran, and Afghanistan in terms of commanding the principal trade routes between
South-West Asia, Central Asia, and South Asia became important for Britain and Russia in the context of the geopolitical expansion of the two
empires in Asia during the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th. In 1854, Britain entered into a treaty with the Khan, ruler of Baluchistan, in
order to defend its territories against an external invasion from Central Asia and Iran. At the same time the Iranian rulers, who had lost their northern
provinces to the Russians, pursued a policy of expansion towards Baluchistan in order to compensate for the lost areas. However, in 187O,the
British Government agreed to demarcate the border with the Khanate of Baluchistan. In 1871, the British Government accepted the Iranian proposal
and appointed Maj. General Gold-smid as Chief Commissioner of the joint Perso-Baluch Boundary Commission, Iran was represented by Mirza
Ibrahim, and the Khanate of Baluchistan was represented by Sardar Faqir Muhammad Bizenjo, the Governor of Makran, The Baluch delegate
submitted a claim for Western Baluchistan and Iranians claimed most of Makran including Kohuk. After several months of negotiations, Goldsmid
divided Baluchistan into two parts without taking into consideration history, geography, culture or religion, and ignoring the statements of Baluch
chiefs^ho regarded themselves as subjects of the Khan. Goldsmid's decision was based on political considerations. He aimed to please Iran in
order to keep Iran away from Russia.
The Kohuk dispute; Kohuk is situated on the Perso-Baluch line. In 1871, General Goldsmid assigned Kohuk to the Khanate of Baluchistan on the
following bases:
1. That the chief of Kohuk stated that he considered himself a feudatory of the Khan.
2. That the Persian Commissioner, Ibrahim, refused to investigate the merits of the question.
The Iranian government finally agreed to the decision in a letter dated September 4, 1871, but in a separate note to Allison (the British Minister at
Tehran) "on the same day requested that, on consideration, a small portion of territory, including Kohuk, Isfunda and Kunabasta, would be made
over to Persia." The question was referred to the Government of British India and General Goldsmid was consulted. Goldsmid changed his view and
favoured the transfer to Iran because "it would make a far more compact and better boundary for Persian than for Khelat territory." At the same time,
British India did not deem it necessary to justify declaring that territories which were not legally part of it should belong to Iran. Consequently, the
British Government decided to prepare an amended map and to exclude Kohuk and other villages from the Khan's territory in order to give Iran the
opportunity to occupy the area. An amended note and map were then sent to Tehran. In the amended note the districts of Kohuk, Isfunda,and
Kunabasta were excluded from the Khanate of Baluchistan. When the decision to exclude this area from Baluchistan was conveyed to the Khan, he
protested against the amended decision. The Khan was informed that the question was not definitely settled, as in April 1873, the Iranian
government had refused to accept the
note. It does not appear to have been necessary to take any further account of his objections. In the late 19th century, the Iranians practically settled
the question of Kohuk by military occupation and continued their policy of expansion in pushing their claim and their raids further and further into the
Khanate. In 1896 and 1905, an Anglo-Persian Joint Boundary Commission was appointed to divide Baluchistan between Iran and Britain. During
the process of demarcation of the frontier, several areas of the Khanate of Baluchistan were surrendered by the British authorities, who were hoping
to please the Iranian government in order to check the Russian influence in Iran. The frontier imposed by two alien powers on the Baluch people
was demarcated without the consent of Kalat. The agreement of 1896 was a clear violation of the treaties of (the agreement) 1854 and 1876,
declaring the Perso-Baluch line to be the frontier of Iran and India. It is interesting to note that the border demarcated by General Gold-smid was
between the independent Khanate and Iran. The agreements of 1896 and 19O5 show a clear shift in British policy towards the Khanate; it was
treated now as an Indian state.
Under the treaty of 19O5, the Khanate lost the territory Of Mir Jawa and in return the Iranian government agreed that this frontier should be regarded
as definitely settled in accordance with the agreement of 1896 and that no further claim should be made in respect of it. In 1872, the British
government appointed General Goldsmid to settle the dispute over Seistan between Iran and Afghanistan. The dispute, however, was ended with
the partition of Seistan between Iran and Afghanistan without the consent of the Baluch people. Ethnically, culturally, and geographically, Seistan is
part of Baluchistan. Seistan ruled by Sanjrani chiefs was the vassal of the Khanate until 1882. A secret diary prepared by the British representative at
Kalat on April 2o, 1872, to the British Government of India suggests that Sardar Ibrahim Khan Sanjrani of Chakansur (Seistan) acted as a vassal of
the Khanate. Sir Robert Sandeman, in the letters to Lord Curzon dated November 22, 1891 and January 12, 1892, described the western limits of
the Khanate as Hassanabad Q (Irani-Seistan) and the Halmand river near Rudbar. The final demarcation of Seistan took place in 19O4 by the
British Commissioner, Sir McMahon, but the historical right of the Khanate and the principle of the right to self-determination were ignored. Sanjrani,
chief of Chakansur, refused to acknowledge the Afghan rule under Amif Abdul Rahman. Nonetheless, the Kabul policy of British India encouraged
Abdul Rahman to occupy the country. Nothing is known about the reaction of Mir Khudadad Khan, the ruler of Baluchistan.
The Baluch-Afghan or MoMahon Line: This covers an area from New Chaman to the Perso-Baluch border. The boundary was demarcated by the
Indo-Afghan Boundary Commission headed by Capt. (later Sir) A. Henry McMahon in 1896. The boundary runs through the Baluch country, dividing
one family from another and one tribe from another. As in the demarcation of the Perso-Baluch Frontier, the Khan was not consulted by the British,
making the validity of the line doubtful, because:
1. The Goldsmid Line (the southern part of the Perso-Baluch Frontier) was imposed on the Khan by the British Government in 1871.
2. In 1896, when the rest of the Perso-Baluch Frontier was demarcated, the Khan ate, an independent state, was not consulted.
3. The partition of Seistan was unjust because Seistan was autonomous and the majority of the population, which was Baluch, recognized the Khan
as their suzerain. The Sanjrani chief of Chakansur (Seistan) refused to accept Afghan rule in 1882.
4. The British reports clearly suggest that the Baluch people resented the rule of Iran and desired to accept, the status of a British protectorate
against Iranian rule.
5. The partition of Baluchistan took place without taking into consideration the 4 factors of geography, culture, history, and the will of the people.
However, the final outcome of the boundary settlements imposed on the Baluch was:
1. Seistan and Western Makran, Sarhad, etc. became part of Iran.
2. Outer Seistan and Registan came under the control of Afghanistan.
3. Jacobabad, Derajat and Sibi were included in British India.
4. The Khanate of Baluchistan was recognized as an independent state with status of a protectorate.
Nevertheless, Baluch tribes in the 19th century and at the beginning of the 20th century showed their hatred of the unnatural and unjust partition
through their revolts against British and Persian rule. Gul Khan, a nationalist writer, wrote: "Due to the decisions of (boundary) Commissions more
than half of the territory of Baluchistan came under the possession of Iran and less than half of it was given to Afghanistan. The factor for the division
of a lordless Baluchistan was to please and control Iran and Afghanistan governments against Russia" in favour of Britain. In 1932, the Baluch
Conference of Jacobabad voiced itself
against the Iranian occupation of Western Baluchistan. in 1933, Mir Abdul 'Aziz Kurd, a prominent national leader of Baluchistan, showed his
opposition to the partition and division of Baluchistan by publishing the first map of Greater Baluchistan. In 1934, Magassi, the head of the Baluch
national movement, suggested an armed struggle for the liberation and unification of Baluchistan. However, it was a difficult task because of its
division into several parts, each part with a different constitutional and political status
Partition of Balochistan: "Divide And Rule" A famous
quote of the Oppressors
Baluch nationalism, since its birth, has faced the problem of "International" frontiers which divide the Baluch among countries -- Pakistan, Iran, and
Afghanistan. The genesis of the problem pre-dates the Perso-Baluch (1871 and 1895-1905), Seistan (1872-1896), and Baluch-Afghan (1895)
frontiers. The demarcation of these frontiers made the problem more acute and protracted it so that, with the rise of Baluch nationalism in 1930, the
Baluch were divided between Iran, Afghanistan, and what was the British India.
For obvious reasons, Pakistan and Iran had a common interest in suppressing the Baluch claim of self-determination and they have adopted a joint
policy for this purpose. Afghanistan did not share the Iranian and the Pakistan policies but stated its own claim for Baluchistan, as part of its
demand for Pushtunistan. The Baluch-Afghan line as an internaional border is disputed by the Afghans, who regard the frontier with Pakistan as
drawn by the British and agreed to by the Afghans only under duress.
To understand the complexity of the issue involved in the division of Baluchistan, it is important to have some understanding of the historical
circumstances involved. The strategic position of Baluchistan, Iran, and Afghanistan in terms of commanding the principal trade routes between
South-West Asia, Central Asia, and South Asia became important for Britain and Russia in the context of the geopolitical expansion of the two
empires in Asia during the 19th century and the begining of the 20th.
In 1854, Britain entered into a treaty with the Khan, ruler of Baluchistan, in order to defend its territories against an external invasion from Central
Asia, and Iran. At the same time the Iranian rulers, who had lost their northern provinces to the Russians, pursued a policy of expansion towards
Baluchistan in order to compensate for the lost areas. However, in 1870, the British Government agreed to demarcate the border with the Khanate of
Baluchistan, In 1871, the British Government accepted the Iranian proposal and appointed Maj. General Goldsmid as Chief Commissioner of the
joint Perso-Baluch Boundry Commission. Iran was represented by Mirza Ibrahim, and the Khanate of Baluchistan was represented by Sardar Faqir
Muhammad Bizenjo, the Governor of Makran.
The Baluch delegate submitted a claim for Western Baluchistan and Iranians claimed most of Makran including Kohuk. After several months of
negotiations, Goldsmid divided Baluchistan into two parts without taking into consideration, history, geography, culture or religion, and ignoring the
statements of Baluch chiefs, who regarded themselves as subjects of the Khan. Goldsmid's decision was based on political considerations. He
aimed to please Iran in order to keep Iran away from Russia.
Source: The Problem of Greater Balochistan, written by: Innayatullah Baloch
To the neighboring Pushtun tribes, who live in fertile riverine valleys, Baluchistan is "the dump where Allah shot the rubbish of creation. But for the
Baluch, their sense of identity is closely linked to the austere land where they have lived for at least a thousand years. According to the Daptar Sha'ar
{Chronicle of Genealogies), an ancient ballad popular among all seventeen major Baluch tribes, the Baluch and the Kurds were kindred branches
of a tribe that migrated eastwards from Aleppo, in what now is Syria, shortly before the time of Christ in search of fresh pasturelands and water
sources. One school nationalist historians attempts to link this tribe ethnically with the Semitic Chaldean rulers of Babylon, another with the early
Arabs, still others with Aryan tribes originally from Asia Minor. In any case, there is agreement among these historians that the Kurds headed toward
Iraq, Turkey, and northwest Persia, while the Baluch moved In to the coastal areas along the southern shores of the Caspian sea, later migrating
into what are now Iranian Baluchistan and Pakistani Baluchistan between the sixth and fourteenth centuries.
Western historians dismiss the Daptar Sha'ar as nothing more than myth and legend, totally unsubstantiated by verifiable evidence, and it remains
for future scholars to probe into the murky origins of the Baluch. These legends are cited here not because they have serious historiographic value
but because they are widely believed and are thus politically important today. For the most part, Aleppo is a unifying symbol of a common identity in
the historical memories shared by all Baluch. In recent years, however, Arab attempts to attribute Arab ethnic origins to the Baluch have become a
divisive factor in the nationalist movement.
Whatever the authenticity of the Aleppo legends, scholars in Baluchistan and in the West generally agree that the Baluch were living along the
southern shores of the Caspian at the time of Christ. This consensus is based largely on linguistic evidence showing that the Baluchi language is
descended from a lost language linked with the Parthian or Median civilizations, which flourished in the Caspian and adjacent areas in the pre-
Christian era. As one of the oldest living languages, Baluchi is a subject of endless fascination and controversy for linguists. It is classified as a
member of the Iranian group of the Indo-European language family, which includes Farsi (Persian), Pushtu, Baluchi, and Kurdish. Baluchi is closely
related to only one of the members of the Iranian group; Kurdish. In its modern form, it has incorporated borrowings from Persian, Sindhi, Arabic,
and other languages, nonetheless retaining striking peculiarities that can be traced back to its pre-Christian origins. Until150 years ago, the Baluch,
like most nomadic societies, did not have a recorded literature. Initially, Baluch savants used the Persian and Urdu scripts to render Baluchi in
written form. In recent decades, Baluch nationalist intellectuals have evolved a Baluchi script known as Nastaliq, a variant of the Arabic script.
Ethnically, the Baluch are no longer homogeneous, since the original nucleus that migrated from the Caspian has absorbed a variety of disparate
groups along the way. Among these "new" Baluch were displaced tribes from Central Asia, driven southward by the Turkish and Mongol invasions
from the tenth through the thirteenth centuries, and fugitive Arab factions defeated in intra-Arab warfare. Nevertheless, in cultural terms, the Baluch
have been remarkably successful in preserving a distinctive identity in the face of continual pressures from strong cultures in neighboring areas.
Despite the isolation of the scattered pastoral communities in Baluchistan, the Baluchi language and a relatively uniform Baluch folklore tradition
and value system have provided a common denominator for the diverse Baluch tribal groupings scattered over the vast area from the Indus River in
the east to the Iranian province of Kerman in the west. To a great extent, it is the vitality of this ancient cultural heritage that explains the tenacity of the
present demand for the political recognition of Baluch identity. But the strength of Baluch nationalism is also rooted in proud historical memories of
determined resistance against the would-be conquerors who perennially attempted, without success, to annex all or part of Baluchistan to their
adjacent empires.
Reliving their past endlessly in books, magazines, and folk ballads, the Baluch accentuate the positive. They revel in the gory details of ancient
battles against Persians, Turks, Arabs, Tartars, Hindus, and other adversaries, focusing on how valiantly their generals fought rather than on
whether the Baluch won or lost. They point to the heroes who struggled to throw off the yoke of more powerful oppressors and minimize the role of
the quislings who sold out the Baluch cause. Above all, they seek to magnify the achievements of their more successful rulers, contending that the
Baluch were on the verge of consolidating political unity when the British arrived on the scene and applied their policy of divide and rule. This claim
is difficult to sustain with much certainty on the basis of the available evidence. Nevertheless, the Baluch did make several significant attempts to
draw together politically, and their failure to establish an enduring polity in past centuries does not prove that they would fail under the very different
circumstances prevailing today. As Baluch writers argue, given the technologies of modern transportation and communication, the contemporary
Baluch nationalist has new opportunities for cementing Baluch political unity that were not open to his forebears.
From the book
In Afghanistan’s Shadow: Baloch Nationalism and Soviet Temptations By Selig S. Harrison
BALOCHS : Secularism and
Religious Tolerance
Hindus have a friendly status in Baluch society, being leadres of Baloch economic life. In the history of the Khanate, the Finance Ministry was
headed by a local Hindu, and their are examples of a Hindu serving as governor of a province. During the seige of Kalat (1839), Finance Minister
Dewan Bucha Mull, a Hindu, sacrificed his life in the defence of Kalat, along with his master, Mir Mehrab Khan. The Hindu and other minorities
always enjoyed the good will policy of secular Baluch society.
In the late 19th century, when British authorities asked Baluch and Pushtuns how their civil cases should be decided, the Baluch replied: "Rawaj"
(Baluch customary law); the Pushtun answered: "Sharia" (Islamic law).
There is an interesting story which exemplifies the Baluch approach to religion: "Once a Baluch was asked why he did not keep the fast of Ramzan
(Ramadan). Replied the Baluch that he was excused, as his chief was keeping it for him. "What are you doing?" asked a practising Muslim about
his evening prayers. He was answered: "Praying in the fear of God." Rejoined the Baluch: "Come along to my hills where we don't fear anybody."
Religion has played an important role in the rise of some nations, while for others it was rejected as a basis of unity. The nationalists of Belgium
and Ireland used religious matters as a basis for their separation from Holland and Britain respectively, and British India was divided into two state-
nations in 1947 on religious grounds. On the other hand, the Arab nationalists opposed the religious Khilafat headed by Ottoman Turks. (the Khilafat
was a religious and political institution that united the Millat - Muslim Community - under a political banner until 1918). Arab nationalism derives its
force from common geography, history and culture rather than from religion. In 1971, the Muslims of Bangladesh rejected the two-nation theory of
Jinnah, which was based on religion, and formed their own state.
The Baluch people differ from those of Punjab and Sind, and from the Muslims of India in their concept of a religious state. The Baluch regard
reliogion has the individual's private affair.
Befor the advent of Islam, it is believed that the majority of Baluch were Mazdaki and Zorostrians. Today the majority of the Baluch are of the Islamic
faith and belong to the Sunni sect, which is predominant in the Muslim world. Their old war ballads, however, claim that the Baluch were followers of
Caliph Ali, and were therefore originally followers of Shia Islam.
"We are servants of Hazrat Ali, the true Imam of the Faith."
According to tradition the Baluch joined Imam Hussain, against Caliph Yazid. After the murder of Hussain, the Baluch were expelled from Syria nd
Iraq() to Persia. Nothing is known about the causes of their conversion to Sunni Islam. When Iranians embraced Sunni Islam, the Baluch became
Shias, and with the conversion of Iranians to Shia Islam we discover Baluch joining the opposite camp - Sunni Islam. In Western Baluchistan, Sunni
Islam has played an important role in the development of Baluch nationalism, as the Shia branch of Islam in Iran as always had strained relations
with the Baluch. The influence of the Sunni Muslim priest class increased with the Iranian occupation of Western Baluchistan in the 19th century.
The Khanate of Baluchistan allied with the Sunni rulers of Turkey, Mughal India, and Afghanistan against Shia Iran. In the 18th century, Nasir Khan
the Great took part in several campaigns against Iranians in favour of Sunni Afghans.
Besides the Sunni and Zikri Muslims, their had been and are several other religious minorities in the area, such as Hindus, Zoroastrians, Jews, and
Ismailies Khojas.
Hindus have a friendly status in Baluch society, being leadres of Baloch economic life. In the history of the Khanate, the Finance Ministry was
headed by a local Hindu, and their are examples of a Hindu serving as governor of a province. During the seige of Kalat (1839), Finance Minister
Dewan Bucha Mull, a Hindu, sacrificed his life in the defence of Kalat, along with his master, Mir Mehrab Khan. The Hindu and other minorities
always enjoyed the good will policy of secular Baluch society.
In 1947, when the Khanate became an independent sovereign state under the Khanate's constitution, elections were held for the Lower House, Dar-
ul-Awam. The Muslim Baluch population elected five Hindu memebers to the Lower House of the Khanate.
Contrary to the Baluch, the Afghans are orthodox Muslims. During the reign of Amir Abdur-Rahman, Amir of Kabul, the Kafirs (or Kalash tribe) were
converted forceably to Islam and their country was renamed "Nuristan" (the land of light). The Persians did not tolerate Babis or Bahais and Sunnis.
In the Indian subcontinent, Muslim rulers like Aurangzeb adopted a fanatic policy towards Hindus. During the independence movement in 1947,
Hindus of Punjab, Sind and the North West Frontier Province were massacred by their Muslim neighbours. The Hindus inhabiting the Baluch
regions, however, lived in peace and harmony and were protected in the border areas by the Baluch. For instance, when the Ghilzai Pashtuns
attacked the Hindu villages in the Dera Ismail Khan District, it was the Baluch chief, Sardar Abdur-Rahman Khan, Bhani Kulachi (the chief of the
Kolachi tribe) who declared them "Bahut". Under the Baluch code of honour, Bahut is a person or persons who are given asylum by a Baluch and
their protection is a sacred duty of the protector. Several families were saved from the pogroms and then eventually migrated to India in 1947 and
1948.
When the Pakistan government demanded "accession" of the Khanate in 1947-48, on the grounds of Islam being the common religion, this act was
detested and rejected by the Parliament of the Khanate. Mir Ghaus Bakhsh Bizenjo voiced the Baluch opinion against the religious nationalism of
Pakistan: "We are Muslims but it (this fact) did not mean (it is) necessary to lose our independence and to merge with other (nations) because of the
Muslim (faith). If our accession into Pakistan is necessary, being Muslim, then Muslim states of Afghanistan and Iran should also merge with
Pakistan."
E. Oliver has pointed out that Baluch "has less of God in his head and less of the devil in his nature." According to him, "The Afghan is a dangerous
fanatic while the Baluch prefers to have his prayers said for him."
There is an interesting story whish exemplifies the Baluch approach to religion: "Once a Baluch was asked why he did not keep the fast of Ramzan
(Ramadan). Replied the Baluch that he was excused, as his chief was keeping it for him." "What are you doing?" asked a practising Muslim about
his evening prayers. He was answered: "Praying in the fear of God." Rejoined the Baluch: "Come along to my hills where we don't fear any body."
There is a Baluch proverb that "God will not favour a person who does not plunder and rob."
These examples clearly show that the Baluch is completely different from his neighbours like the Pushtun and Punjabi. In the late 19th century,
when British authorities asked Baluch and Pushtuns how their civil cases should be decided, the Baluch replied: "Rawaj" (Baluch customary law);
the Pushtun answered: "Sharia" (Islamic Law).
In 1947, when the Indian subcontinent suffered under the effects of Muslim-Hindu riots, it was only the Baluch society where Hindu minorities
remained untouched and lived in peace; the Baluch were not influenced by their neighbours. Throughout Baluch history, the Baluch people did not
fight religious wars against India, with the exception of Nasir Khan the Great, and the factors behind the Baluch invasion of India under Nasir Khan
the Great were more economic and political than religious.
Source: The Problem of Greater Balochistan, written by Innayatullah Baloch
Baloch nationalism, since its birth
Baluch nationalism, since its birth, has faced the problem of "international" frontiers which divide the Baluch among countries - Pakistan, Iran/and
Afghanistan. The genesis of the problem pre-dates the Perso-Baluch (1871 and 1895-1905), 4 Seistan (1872-1896)(and Baluch-Afghan (1895)
frontiers. The demarcation of these frontiers made the problem more acute and protracted it so that^ with the rise of Baluch nationalism in 193O, the
Baluch were divided between Iran, Afghanistan and what was then British India. For obvious reasons, Pakistan and Iran had a common interest in
suppressing the Baluch claim of self-determination and they have adopted a joint policy for this purpose. Afghanistan did not share the Iranian and
Pakistan policies but stated its own claim for Baluchistan, as part of its demand for Pushtunistan. The Baluch-Afghan line as an international border
is disputed by the Afghans, who regard the frontier with Pakistan as drawn by the British and agreed to by the Afghans only under duress.
To understand the complexity of the issue involved in the division of Baluchistan, it is important to have some understanding of the historical
circumstances involved. The strategic position of Baluchistan, Iran, and Afghanistan in terms of commanding the principal trade routes between
South-West Asia, Central Asia, and South Asia became important for Britain and Russia in the context of the geopolitical expansion of the two
empires in Asia during the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th. In 1854, Britain entered into a treaty with the Khan, ruler of Baluchistan, in
order to defend its territories against an external invasion from Central Asia and Iran. At the same time the Iranian rulers, who had lost their northern
provinces to the Russians, pursued a policy of expansion towards Baluchistan in order to compensate for the lost areas. However, in 187O,the
British Government agreed to demarcate the border with the Khanate of Baluchistan. In 1871, the British Government accepted the Iranian proposal
and appointed Maj. General Gold-smid as Chief Commissioner of the joint Perso-Baluch Boundary Commission, Iran was represented by Mirza
Ibrahim, and the Khanate of Baluchistan was represented by Sardar Faqir Muhammad Bizenjo, the Governor of Makran, The Baluch delegate
submitted a claim for Western Baluchistan and Iranians claimed most of Makran including Kohuk. After several months of negotiations, Goldsmid
divided Baluchistan into two parts without taking into consideration history, geography, culture or religion, and ignoring the statements of Baluch
chiefs^ho regarded themselves as subjects of the Khan. Goldsmid's decision was based on political considerations. He aimed to please Iran in
order to keep Iran away from Russia.
The Kohuk dispute; Kohuk is situated on the Perso-Baluch line. In 1871, General Goldsmid assigned Kohuk to the Khanate of Baluchistan on the
following bases:
1. That the chief of Kohuk stated that he considered himself a feudatory of the Khan.
2. That the Persian Commissioner, Ibrahim, refused to investigate the merits of the question.
The Iranian government finally agreed to the decision in a letter dated September 4, 1871, but in a separate note to Allison (the British Minister at
Tehran) "on the same day requested that, on consideration, a small portion of territory, including Kohuk, Isfunda and Kunabasta, would be made
over to Persia." The question was referred to the Government of British India and General Goldsmid was consulted. Goldsmid changed his view and
favoured the transfer to Iran because "it would make a far more compact and better boundary for Persian than for Khelat territory." At the same time,
British India did not deem it necessary to justify declaring that territories which were not legally part of it should belong to Iran. Consequently, the
British Government decided to prepare an amended map and to exclude Kohuk and other villages from the Khan's territory in order to give Iran the
opportunity to occupy the area. An amended note and map were then sent to Tehran. In the amended note the districts of Kohuk, Isfunda,and
Kunabasta were excluded from the Khanate of Baluchistan. When the decision to exclude this area from Baluchistan was conveyed to the Khan, he
protested against the amended decision. The Khan was informed that the question was not definitely settled, as in April 1873, the Iranian
government had refused to accept the
note. It does not appear to have been necessary to take any further account of his objections. In the late 19th century, the Iranians practically settled
the question of Kohuk by military occupation and continued their policy of expansion in pushing their claim and their raids further and further into the
Khanate. In 1896 and 1905, an Anglo-Persian Joint Boundary Commission was appointed to divide Baluchistan between Iran and Britain. During
the process of demarcation of the frontier, several areas of the Khanate of Baluchistan were surrendered by the British authorities, who were hoping
to please the Iranian government in order to check the Russian influence in Iran. The frontier imposed by two alien powers on the Baluch people
was demarcated without the consent of Kalat. The agreement of 1896 was a clear violation of the treaties of (the agreement) 1854 and 1876,
declaring the Perso-Baluch line to be the frontier of Iran and India. It is interesting to note that the border demarcated by General Gold-smid was
between the independent Khanate and Iran. The agreements of 1896 and 19O5 show a clear shift in British policy towards the Khanate; it was
treated now as an Indian state.
Under the treaty of 19O5, the Khanate lost the territory Of Mir Jawa and in return the Iranian government agreed that this frontier should be regarded
as definitely settled in accordance with the agreement of 1896 and that no further claim should be made in respect of it. In 1872, the British
government appointed General Goldsmid to settle the dispute over Seistan between Iran and Afghanistan. The dispute, however, was ended with
the partition of Seistan between Iran and Afghanistan without the consent of the Baluch people. Ethnically, culturally, and geographically, Seistan is
part of Baluchistan. Seistan ruled by Sanjrani chiefs was the vassal of the Khanate until 1882. A secret diary prepared by the British representative at
Kalat on April 2o, 1872, to the British Government of India suggests that Sardar Ibrahim Khan Sanjrani of Chakansur (Seistan) acted as a vassal of
the Khanate. Sir Robert Sandeman, in the letters to Lord Curzon dated November 22, 1891 and January 12, 1892, described the western limits of
the Khanate as Hassanabad Q (Irani-Seistan) and the Halmand river near Rudbar. The final demarcation of Seistan took place in 19O4 by the
British Commissioner, Sir McMahon, but the historical right of the Khanate and the principle of the right to self-determination were ignored. Sanjrani,
chief of Chakansur, refused to acknowledge the Afghan rule under Amif Abdul Rahman. Nonetheless, the Kabul policy of British India encouraged
Abdul Rahman to occupy the country. Nothing is known about the reaction of Mir Khudadad Khan, the ruler of Baluchistan.
The Baluch-Afghan or MoMahon Line: This covers an area from New Chaman to the Perso-Baluch border. The boundary was demarcated by the
Indo-Afghan Boundary Commission headed by Capt. (later Sir) A. Henry McMahon in 1896. The boundary runs through the Baluch country, dividing
one family from another and one tribe from another. As in the demarcation of the Perso-Baluch Frontier, the Khan was not consulted by the British,
making the validity of the line doubtful, because:
1. The Goldsmid Line (the southern part of the Perso-Baluch Frontier) was imposed on the Khan by the British Government in 1871.
2. In 1896, when the rest of the Perso-Baluch Frontier was demarcated, the Khan ate, an independent state, was not consulted.
3. The partition of Seistan was unjust because Seistan was autonomous and the majority of the population, which was Baluch, recognized the Khan
as their suzerain. The Sanjrani chief of Chakansur (Seistan) refused to accept Afghan rule in 1882.
4. The British reports clearly suggest that the Baluch people resented the rule of Iran and desired to accept, the status of a British protectorate
against Iranian rule.
5. The partition of Baluchistan took place without taking into consideration the 4 factors of geography, culture, history, and the will of the people.
However, the final outcome of the boundary settlements imposed on the Baluch was:
1. Seistan and Western Makran, Sarhad, etc. became part of Iran.
2. Outer Seistan and Registan came under the control of Afghanistan.
3. Jacobabad, Derajat and Sibi were included in British India.
4. The Khanate of Baluchistan was recognized as an independent state with status of a protectorate.
Nevertheless, Baluch tribes in the 19th century and at the beginning of the 20th century showed their hatred of the unnatural and unjust partition
through their revolts against British and Persian rule. Gul Khan, a nationalist writer, wrote: "Due to the decisions of (boundary) Commissions more
than half of the territory of Baluchistan came under the possession of Iran and less than half of it was given to Afghanistan. The factor for the division
of a lordless Baluchistan was to please and control Iran and Afghanistan governments against Russia" in favour of Britain. In 1932, the Baluch
Conference of Jacobabad voiced itself
against the Iranian occupation of Western Baluchistan. in 1933, Mir Abdul 'Aziz Kurd, a prominent national leader of Baluchistan, showed his
opposition to the partition and division of Baluchistan by publishing the first map of Greater Baluchistan. In 1934, Magassi, the head of the Baluch
national movement, suggested an armed struggle for the liberation and unification of Baluchistan. However, it was a difficult task because of its
division into several parts, each part with a different constitutional and political status
Partition of Balochistan: "Divide And Rule" A famous
quote of the Oppressors
Baluch nationalism, since its birth, has faced the problem of "International" frontiers which divide the Baluch among countries -- Pakistan, Iran, and
Afghanistan. The genesis of the problem pre-dates the Perso-Baluch (1871 and 1895-1905), Seistan (1872-1896), and Baluch-Afghan (1895)
frontiers. The demarcation of these frontiers made the problem more acute and protracted it so that, with the rise of Baluch nationalism in 1930, the
Baluch were divided between Iran, Afghanistan, and what was the British India.
For obvious reasons, Pakistan and Iran had a common interest in suppressing the Baluch claim of self-determination and they have adopted a joint
policy for this purpose. Afghanistan did not share the Iranian and the Pakistan policies but stated its own claim for Baluchistan, as part of its
demand for Pushtunistan. The Baluch-Afghan line as an internaional border is disputed by the Afghans, who regard the frontier with Pakistan as
drawn by the British and agreed to by the Afghans only under duress.
To understand the complexity of the issue involved in the division of Baluchistan, it is important to have some understanding of the historical
circumstances involved. The strategic position of Baluchistan, Iran, and Afghanistan in terms of commanding the principal trade routes between
South-West Asia, Central Asia, and South Asia became important for Britain and Russia in the context of the geopolitical expansion of the two
empires in Asia during the 19th century and the begining of the 20th.
In 1854, Britain entered into a treaty with the Khan, ruler of Baluchistan, in order to defend its territories against an external invasion from Central
Asia, and Iran. At the same time the Iranian rulers, who had lost their northern provinces to the Russians, pursued a policy of expansion towards
Baluchistan in order to compensate for the lost areas. However, in 1870, the British Government agreed to demarcate the border with the Khanate of
Baluchistan, In 1871, the British Government accepted the Iranian proposal and appointed Maj. General Goldsmid as Chief Commissioner of the
joint Perso-Baluch Boundry Commission. Iran was represented by Mirza Ibrahim, and the Khanate of Baluchistan was represented by Sardar Faqir
Muhammad Bizenjo, the Governor of Makran.
The Baluch delegate submitted a claim for Western Baluchistan and Iranians claimed most of Makran including Kohuk. After several months of
negotiations, Goldsmid divided Baluchistan into two parts without taking into consideration, history, geography, culture or religion, and ignoring the
statements of Baluch chiefs, who regarded themselves as subjects of the Khan. Goldsmid's decision was based on political considerations. He
aimed to please Iran in order to keep Iran away from Russia.
Source: The Problem of Greater Balochistan, written by: Innayatullah Baloch