|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Baloch Society Of North America (BSO_NA) Baloch Society Of North America (BSO_NA) is Non-Profit Organization, working to unite and Organize all Baloch in North America, 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. |
"Federalism and Balochistan"
By: Rashed Rahman
Feb 1, 2007
Federalism and democracy were stillborn in Pakistan soon after independence. Today, these are threatened, if not
extinct species. The failure over many years to adopt these foundational principles of any modern, civilised, multi-
national state led in 1971 to the separation of East Pakistan, an episode bathed in blood and shame. Learning
nothing from the catastrophic events of 1971 (helped immensely by a long conspiracy of silence), successive
governments have continued to deny the provinces political, economic and cultural autonomy within the framework
of a federal state. In Balochistan in particular, this deprivation has been the sharpest and most pointed. We are
currently witnessing the fifth war in Balochistan since independence. There is a discernible recurring pattern of
attempts at the suppression of the people of Balochistan whenever they demand their rights as a province,
federating unit, and culturally discrete entity. Balochistan, the largest province in area in post-1971 Pakistan (42
percent of the remaining Pakistan’s territory), is the poorest and most undeveloped of the four provinces. This, in
spite of the fact that the province is floating on a sea of oil, gas, and minerals of many varieties, enjoys a highly
strategic coastline of about 1,000 kms at the mouth of the Gulf (hence the Gwadar port), and could potentially
therefore be the richest in par capita terms of any province. The present government is following in the footsteps of
governments that have gone before in seeking to extract Balochistan’s riches through an imposed so-called
modernisation and development from above. The lack of participation by, and stake in, this approach (which
includes the much touted mega-projects) of the people of Balochistan has always aroused resistance, and that
situation continues to this day. The answer of successive governments to this assertion of provincial rights (long
denied) has been to send in the army. The pattern continues, the current government, headed by General
Musharraf, borrowing a couple of leaves from Zulfikar Ali Bhutto’s book to castigate the resistance of the people as
a reactionary attempt by the vested interests of tribal chiefs (sardars) to cling to their power and privileges over
ordinary tribals. The Centre’s development thrust in Balochistan is still described, as in the 1970s conflict by Mr.
Bhutto, as ‘modernisation’ and bringing the benighted province into the mainstream of national development while
‘doing away with’ the tribal system. The tribal system is a historically evolved political, economic, social and cultural
construct. The sardar is only first among equals according to tribal riwaj (custom), which is binding upon the chief
as much as any ordinary tribal. The sardar is also the ultimate adjudicator of intra-tribal disputes and cases. There
are instances in Baloch history of sardars being removed (sometimes violently) if they deviated from or violated
tribal riwaj. Despite being relatively primitive, these structures have helped the Baloch survive against vastly more
powerful neighbouring empires (the Mughal, Persian and Afghan) in the past. Today, whenever threatened by an
‘outside’ force, the Baloch tribes ‘circle the wagons’ and bond even more closely in defence of their common
interests. Repeated military suppression campaigns, therefore, far from helping Baloch society to move away from
or transcend tribal structures, has had the opposite effect of solidifying these structures. Of course the government’
s fulminations against the sardars (as in the 1970s) ring hollow, given that the overwhelming majority of sardars
are with the Centre’s aims in Balochistan and benefiting therefrom without any of their tribal structures or customs
being questioned. Tribal society cannot be weaned away from inherited structures and traditions through the
application of military force. This is only possible through a process of historical evolution, which would include all
the benefits of education and social progress, but which can only be implemented in a democratic manner, from
the bottom up, not top down. Top-down, imposed modernization through military force has led in the past and
continues to this day to evoke armed resistance. While the balance of military force is overwhelmingly tilted towards
the state, the Baloch guerrillas can indefinitely rely on the advantages of the people’s sympathy and terrain to hold
out against the army, while all infrastructure, gas, electricity, roads and railways, stand threatened by the sabotage
of the insurgents. Islamabad approaches Balochistan with the same attitudes as the relatively newly emerged
United States viewed its West – the ‘Frontier’ that would transform the country into a formidable power. It is not for
nothing, therefore, that Baloch nationalists often compare what is being done to their people with the fate of the
indigenous peoples of the US. Whether Islamabad in the 21st century will be able to emulate Washington’s
historical example of the 18th and 19th centuries remains an open question. In parallel with the military operation
being conducted all over Balochistan, but particularly centred on the Marri and Bugti areas, the government has
adopted a culture of impunity and mendacity to cover up its illegal regime of arresting dissidents and then making
them ‘disappear’. This ‘enforced disappearances’ regime has been in operation since the year 2000. It was the
government’s response to the breakout of guerrilla insurgency around that time, demanding the rights of the
people of Balochistan over their own resources and complete and undiluted provincial autonomy. (The guerrillas
have not clearly come out with a demand for independence, although such sentiments are around.) As in the
previous four wars, the military has employed its vastly superior firepower and technology against relatively poorly
armed guerrillas whose heaviest weapons are rifles and rockets. Deep anger and unrest is visible in the province,
not the least because of the alleged rounding up by the intelligence agencies of thousands of people who have
been held in secret custody for months if not years without being produced in any court of law. Most of those
detained are political workers and leaders, with Marri and Bugti tribesmen heading the list of the ‘disappeared’. If
there is any such thing as a law in the country, anyone arrested on suspicion of a crime must be produced before a
judicial magistrate within 24 hours. Since none of those ‘missing’ have ever been produced before a court, scores
of applications regarding the missing persons are pending in the Balochistan High Court. The authorities and the
intelligence agencies continue to lie barefacedly before the courts (including the Supreme Court) that they are not
holding the missing persons. But their lies have been exposed for what they are by former detainees who have
been fortunate enough to be released and have reported that they have seen some of the ‘missing’ persons in
various detention centres. These centres are being used to inflict horrific tortures on the detainees, including, but
not limited to, electric shocks and the favourite tool of our law enforcement agencies – the chittar (a leather paddle
that inflicts painful blows without breaking the skin). The principle of federalism rests on democracy. It should be
clear to all but the most diehard satraps of General Musharraf’s regime that military rule and democratic federalism
are incompatible. The people throughout the country have to become aware of the fact that the struggle being
played out in Balochistan today, however remote it may appear at first glance from our day-to-day lives, is our
common struggle for democracy and federalism, arguably the only means by which the country can be kept
together and the bitterness of smaller nationalities allayed by bringing justice and equity to all our federating units.
If we fail the Baloch today, no one should be surprised to learn some way down the road that Pakistan once again
is teetering on the brink of a catastrophe a la 1971. As for the Baloch, they will have to reach out sooner or later to
the people in the rest of the country to forge bonds of solidarity in struggle. And as for Punjab, the target of most ire,
they will also have to learn that it is far from monolithic, and that what they mistake as a common Punjabi
exploitation of their province, is actually nothing but the policy of the ruling elite, which is oppressing the people as
a whole throughout the country, and even in Punjab itself. The writer is the Executive Editor of The Post
http://www.thepost. com.pk/OpinionNe ws.aspx?dtlid= 80202&catid=11
By: Rashed Rahman
Feb 1, 2007
Federalism and democracy were stillborn in Pakistan soon after independence. Today, these are threatened, if not
extinct species. The failure over many years to adopt these foundational principles of any modern, civilised, multi-
national state led in 1971 to the separation of East Pakistan, an episode bathed in blood and shame. Learning
nothing from the catastrophic events of 1971 (helped immensely by a long conspiracy of silence), successive
governments have continued to deny the provinces political, economic and cultural autonomy within the framework
of a federal state. In Balochistan in particular, this deprivation has been the sharpest and most pointed. We are
currently witnessing the fifth war in Balochistan since independence. There is a discernible recurring pattern of
attempts at the suppression of the people of Balochistan whenever they demand their rights as a province,
federating unit, and culturally discrete entity. Balochistan, the largest province in area in post-1971 Pakistan (42
percent of the remaining Pakistan’s territory), is the poorest and most undeveloped of the four provinces. This, in
spite of the fact that the province is floating on a sea of oil, gas, and minerals of many varieties, enjoys a highly
strategic coastline of about 1,000 kms at the mouth of the Gulf (hence the Gwadar port), and could potentially
therefore be the richest in par capita terms of any province. The present government is following in the footsteps of
governments that have gone before in seeking to extract Balochistan’s riches through an imposed so-called
modernisation and development from above. The lack of participation by, and stake in, this approach (which
includes the much touted mega-projects) of the people of Balochistan has always aroused resistance, and that
situation continues to this day. The answer of successive governments to this assertion of provincial rights (long
denied) has been to send in the army. The pattern continues, the current government, headed by General
Musharraf, borrowing a couple of leaves from Zulfikar Ali Bhutto’s book to castigate the resistance of the people as
a reactionary attempt by the vested interests of tribal chiefs (sardars) to cling to their power and privileges over
ordinary tribals. The Centre’s development thrust in Balochistan is still described, as in the 1970s conflict by Mr.
Bhutto, as ‘modernisation’ and bringing the benighted province into the mainstream of national development while
‘doing away with’ the tribal system. The tribal system is a historically evolved political, economic, social and cultural
construct. The sardar is only first among equals according to tribal riwaj (custom), which is binding upon the chief
as much as any ordinary tribal. The sardar is also the ultimate adjudicator of intra-tribal disputes and cases. There
are instances in Baloch history of sardars being removed (sometimes violently) if they deviated from or violated
tribal riwaj. Despite being relatively primitive, these structures have helped the Baloch survive against vastly more
powerful neighbouring empires (the Mughal, Persian and Afghan) in the past. Today, whenever threatened by an
‘outside’ force, the Baloch tribes ‘circle the wagons’ and bond even more closely in defence of their common
interests. Repeated military suppression campaigns, therefore, far from helping Baloch society to move away from
or transcend tribal structures, has had the opposite effect of solidifying these structures. Of course the government’
s fulminations against the sardars (as in the 1970s) ring hollow, given that the overwhelming majority of sardars
are with the Centre’s aims in Balochistan and benefiting therefrom without any of their tribal structures or customs
being questioned. Tribal society cannot be weaned away from inherited structures and traditions through the
application of military force. This is only possible through a process of historical evolution, which would include all
the benefits of education and social progress, but which can only be implemented in a democratic manner, from
the bottom up, not top down. Top-down, imposed modernization through military force has led in the past and
continues to this day to evoke armed resistance. While the balance of military force is overwhelmingly tilted towards
the state, the Baloch guerrillas can indefinitely rely on the advantages of the people’s sympathy and terrain to hold
out against the army, while all infrastructure, gas, electricity, roads and railways, stand threatened by the sabotage
of the insurgents. Islamabad approaches Balochistan with the same attitudes as the relatively newly emerged
United States viewed its West – the ‘Frontier’ that would transform the country into a formidable power. It is not for
nothing, therefore, that Baloch nationalists often compare what is being done to their people with the fate of the
indigenous peoples of the US. Whether Islamabad in the 21st century will be able to emulate Washington’s
historical example of the 18th and 19th centuries remains an open question. In parallel with the military operation
being conducted all over Balochistan, but particularly centred on the Marri and Bugti areas, the government has
adopted a culture of impunity and mendacity to cover up its illegal regime of arresting dissidents and then making
them ‘disappear’. This ‘enforced disappearances’ regime has been in operation since the year 2000. It was the
government’s response to the breakout of guerrilla insurgency around that time, demanding the rights of the
people of Balochistan over their own resources and complete and undiluted provincial autonomy. (The guerrillas
have not clearly come out with a demand for independence, although such sentiments are around.) As in the
previous four wars, the military has employed its vastly superior firepower and technology against relatively poorly
armed guerrillas whose heaviest weapons are rifles and rockets. Deep anger and unrest is visible in the province,
not the least because of the alleged rounding up by the intelligence agencies of thousands of people who have
been held in secret custody for months if not years without being produced in any court of law. Most of those
detained are political workers and leaders, with Marri and Bugti tribesmen heading the list of the ‘disappeared’. If
there is any such thing as a law in the country, anyone arrested on suspicion of a crime must be produced before a
judicial magistrate within 24 hours. Since none of those ‘missing’ have ever been produced before a court, scores
of applications regarding the missing persons are pending in the Balochistan High Court. The authorities and the
intelligence agencies continue to lie barefacedly before the courts (including the Supreme Court) that they are not
holding the missing persons. But their lies have been exposed for what they are by former detainees who have
been fortunate enough to be released and have reported that they have seen some of the ‘missing’ persons in
various detention centres. These centres are being used to inflict horrific tortures on the detainees, including, but
not limited to, electric shocks and the favourite tool of our law enforcement agencies – the chittar (a leather paddle
that inflicts painful blows without breaking the skin). The principle of federalism rests on democracy. It should be
clear to all but the most diehard satraps of General Musharraf’s regime that military rule and democratic federalism
are incompatible. The people throughout the country have to become aware of the fact that the struggle being
played out in Balochistan today, however remote it may appear at first glance from our day-to-day lives, is our
common struggle for democracy and federalism, arguably the only means by which the country can be kept
together and the bitterness of smaller nationalities allayed by bringing justice and equity to all our federating units.
If we fail the Baloch today, no one should be surprised to learn some way down the road that Pakistan once again
is teetering on the brink of a catastrophe a la 1971. As for the Baloch, they will have to reach out sooner or later to
the people in the rest of the country to forge bonds of solidarity in struggle. And as for Punjab, the target of most ire,
they will also have to learn that it is far from monolithic, and that what they mistake as a common Punjabi
exploitation of their province, is actually nothing but the policy of the ruling elite, which is oppressing the people as
a whole throughout the country, and even in Punjab itself. The writer is the Executive Editor of The Post
http://www.thepost. com.pk/OpinionNe ws.aspx?dtlid= 80202&catid=11