حزب مردم بلوچستان Balochistan People’s Party بلوچستانءِ اُستمانءِ گــَل
Balochistan after Bugti
By Alok Bansal
August 28, 2006
The recent reports that
nationalist leader Nawab Akbar Khan Bugti was killed by Pakistani troops
in a fierce operation that resulted in the death of 37 Baloch nationalists
and 21 elite commandos of Pakistani security forces in Kohlu District of
Balochistan in the early hours of August 27 does not augur well for the
restive province.
The reaction to his killing has been strong and violent. Over five hundred
people are reported to have been arrested. An indefinite curfew has been
clamped on Quetta, and Karachi is reported to be tense. There is no doubt
that the Sardar of Bugti tribals commanded large-scale support in his
traditional stronghold, even though a government sponsored assembly of
leaders of various Bugti sub-clans had just the other day declared the end
of Sardari system in Dera Bugti.
But as is apparent now, this government sponsored show made no dent to the
popular support enjoyed by Nawab Akbar Khan Bugti, the leader of the
largest Bugti tribe � popularly known as the 'Tiger of Balochistan'. A
strong proponent of Baloch autonomy, he is believed to have said, "I have
been a Baloch for several centuries. I have been a Muslim for 1400 years.
I have been a Pakistani for just over fifty."
British-educated Nawab Akbar Bugti, who was in his 80s and had played a
major role in the politics of Balochistan for five decades, was relatively
a late entrant to the cause of Baloch nationalism and till his recent
falling out with the Pakistani establishment; he had been one of the
pillars of Pakistani government in the region.
He was not only the first Baloch to be nominated to the Pakistani cabinet,
but also a former chief minister of the province. He had also been the
governor of the province and Islamabad's point man during the last major
conflagration in Balochistan from 1973 to 1979.
He was reported to have been ruling his subjects with a firm hand and had
been accused of operating private jails and running a feudal justice
system in his area. His running feud with Kalpar Waderas, the hereditary
head of one of the Baloch sub-clans had led to the forced migration of
over 10,000 Kalpars from Dera Bugti. He was also the leader of Jamhoori
Watan Party, which has representation in the provincial assembly as well
as in the parliament.
He had been attempting to get all Baloch nationalist parties under one
umbrella. Of late, he had been in the limelight during the ongoing anti
government resistance and Dera Bugti district his traditional stronghold
has been the scene of most pitched battles fought between security forces
and the Baloch nationalists.
In January 2005, after a Sindhi lady doctor was allegedly raped by an army
officer in Sui, Bugti tribesmen had stormed the Pakistan Petroleum Limited
Complex at Sui and the four day long running battle resulted in rebels
firing more than 14,000 rounds of small arms, 436 mortar and 60 rockets.
The pitched battles at Sui gave a severe jolt to Pakistani economy and in
the immediate aftermath Karachi Stock Exchange lost almost half its net
worth.
The security forces had tried to eliminate him earlier in March 2005, when
they had shelled his ancestral house at Dera Bugti. Although 17 shells hit
his residence, he survived. The day-long shelling claimed 67 lives,
including 33 Hindus, who inhabited the neighbouring Hindu ghetto and eight
Frontier Corps men. It also resulted in injury to over 100 people and
severe damage to a number of houses and temples.
Bugti had to flee Dera Bugti early this year and take refuge in the
mountains surrounding Dera Bugti and Kohlu districts, from where he had
been coordinating the Baloch resistance.
The killing of Nawab Bugti seems to have galvanised the Baloch
nationalists. There were protests all across Balochistan and protesters
burnt vehicles, banks and petrol pumps in Quetta, established roadblocks
by burning tyres, and an indefinite curfew had to be clamped in the city.
In Kalat, 150 km South of Quetta, a government building was bombed and a
telephone exchange set alight. Baloch nationalists have called for a total
strike throughout Balochistan today. In Karachi, the largest city of
Pakistan, there was rioting in Baloch dominated areas.
The killing was been criticised by almost all political parties who are
constituents of Association for Restoration of Democracy (ARD), as well as
by Muttahida Majlis e Amal (MMA) and even by Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM),
which is a key constituent of the federal government as well as the Sindh
Government.
The widespread criticism has forced the government to refute original
reports that satellite phone trackers were used to locate Nawab Bugti,
thereby implying that he indeed was the target.
According to the latest version from the government, the area was targeted
after an Army helicopter came under fierce attack from the rebels while
over-flying the region. The ensuing battle led to the caving in of the mud
bunker where Bugti along with his men had taken shelter. The fact that
over 20 elite commandos were killed by the rebels indicates that the
rebels gave the security forces a tough fight before they capitulated.
Despite the government's attempts to paint him as an autocratic feudal
despot, Sardar Akbar Khan Bugti, on account of the circumstances and the
manner of his death, is destined to become a martyr of Baloch nationalism
like Nauroz Khan before him.
By killing Bugti, General Musharraf has now permanently alienated a
significant section of Baloch population. He has apparently underestimated
the Baloch nationalism which has led to four major insurgencies since
Pakisan came into being.
A spokesman of the neighbouring and equally recalcitrant Marri tribe
reported that over 140 people from the Bugti and Marri tribes had been
killed in the air and ground operations. He said that it was a major
operation in which both sides suffered losses, but he went on to add that
despite the death of Akbar Bugti, their struggle would continue.
Maybe Nawab Bugti's death will help him to achieve what he failed to
achieve during his lifetime � the unity of all Baloch nationalist groups.
Alok Bansal is a Research Fellow at Institute for Defence Studies and
Analyses, New Delhi. The views expressed are his own.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A loss for Pakistan, A gain for Baloch Nationalists
By Walid Garboni
28-08-2006
The
martyrdom of Nawab Akbar Khan Bugti is a loss for Pakistan and a gain for
Baloch nationalist movement. Until 2003 Baloch nationalists were regarding
him a pro establishment and an obstacle before Baloch national movement,
but the current arrogant establishment which comprises some novice and
inexperienced politicians drove this powerful Nawab of Bugti tribe to
extreme.
When Nawab Bugti started armed resistance against the Pakistan
establishment Baloch nationalists saw this change a bonus for Baloch
nationalist movement, even though many nationalist were still not sure if
he was genuinely with Baloch. They feared that he could sell out to the
establishment once he was offered a good deal. But those fearful were
proven wrong and he earned the backing of many Baloch from all over the
world and respect of entire Baloch nation. The living proof of his
popularity has been endorsed by widespread show of anger by the Baloch in
Pakistan and rest of the world after his death.
All sincere and serious politicians of Pakistan know and are truly right
that the Martyrdom of Nawab Bugti is a big loss for Pakistan and the
greatest gain for Baloch nationalist movement. He was undoubtedly, the
biggest ever Baloch figure who is martyred by a Pakistani Establishment.
Nawab Akbar Khan Bugti said in one of his latest interviews “I am too old
to bow, it is better to die (for Baloch rights) in mountains then in the
bed.” He fulfilled his promise.
Nawab Bugti’s bereavement if compared to that of Gaus Baksh Bezanjo’s will
have visible impact on Baloch nation’s behaviour. If closely looked we can
note that when Gaus Baksh Bezanjo was alive Baloch people voted against
him because he had a pro Pakistan approach in comparison to his opponents,
but when he died immediately after the elections people’s behaviour
changed entirely and in the following elections all those who stood
against Gaus Baksh were voted off.
As the result of this martyrdom it is high likely that many Baloch
politicians who are part of the current establishment will be wiped off
the political scene in the upcoming elections as well as they all will be
treated as Black Sheep of Balochistan by the people. They probably be
forced out of Balochistan and seek settlement in Punjab or Islamabad.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
India must stand by the
Balochs
August 28, 2006
By B. Raman
The Pakistan Air Force and
Army, using aircraft, helicopters and communication sets given by the US
and missiles given by the Chinese, claims to have killed Nawab Akbar Khan
Bugti, one of the founding fathers of the Baloch independence struggle.
Thirty six other freedom-fighters belonging to the Bugti and Marri tribes
were killed in a three-day operation which began August 24 in the Bhambore
Hills, an area between the towns of Kohlu and Dera Bugti. According to
Pakistani media reports, Balach Marri, who was believed to be the chief of
the Balochistan Liberation Army (BLA), and Nawab Bugti's grandsons
Brahamdagh and Mir Ali Bugti were among those killed.
Reliable sources in Balochistan said the Pakistan Army, using modern
communication monitoring sets given by the US for pinpointing the location
of Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri and other remnants of the Al Qaeda
in Pakistani territory, managed to pinpoint the cave in which Nawab Bugti
and his followers had taken shelter for more than a year to escape being
killed by the Pakistani military.
The Air Force went into action on August 24 and 25 and repeatedly bombed
these caves. Thereafter, special commando units of the Pakistan Army,
which had been moved into Balochistan from the North Waziristan area, went
into the area and raided the caves. The survivors of the air strikes put
up a stiff resistance before they were overcome by the army commandos.
Before dying, the freedom fighters managed to kill 40 army commandos,
including six officers.
The plans for a decapitation strike against Nawab Akbar Khan Bugti and the
commander of the BLA had been drawn up by Air Vice Marshal Shehzad Aslam
Chaudhry last year when he was the Deputy Chief of Air Staff (Operations)
last year, and approved by General Pervez Musharraf. Chaudhry has since
retired and has been posted as Pakistan's High Commissioner to Sri Lanka
to help the Sri Lankan government in its operations against the Liberation
Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE).
However, these plans could not be implemented due to lack of precise
intelligence regarding the location of the hideouts of Nawab Bugti.
Moreover, the increasing activities of the Al Qaeda in North Wazaristan
came in the way of the Pakistani military shifting reinforcements to
Balochistan. Reported expression of concern by American officials over the
misuse of the equipment, including helicopter gunships, given by them for
use against Al Qaeda, in the operations against the Baloch freedom
fighters also came in the way of the immediate implementation of the
plans.
Two months ago, the Pakistan Army reached a ceasefire agreement with the
remnants of the Al Qaeda and the Taliban in North Waziristan. Under this
agreement, the jihadis and their local tribal supporters agreed to suspend
their operations against the Pakistani security forces. In return, the
latter agreed not to interfere with their raids into Afghanistan.
This ceasefire agreement enabled the Pakistan Army to shift its forces,
helicopters and communication equipment to Balochistan for operations
against the leaders of the Baloch freedom struggle.
Well-informed sources in Balochistan say that the praise showered on
General Musharraf recently by the US and the UK for his projected, but not
yet proved role in helping the British Police to thwart a jihadi plan to
blow up 10 US-bound planes emboldened Musharraf to launch this operation
against the Baloch freedom fighters. He felt that in view of this praise,
US and British officials were unlikely to take a strong stand against his
operations in Balochistan.
The successful decapitation strike launched by the Pakistan Air Force and
Army is a major tragedy for the Baloch freedom fighters, but they are not
strangers to tragedies. This would only further strengthen their resolve
to step up their independence struggle against the Punjabi-military
colonisation of Balochistan, with the alleged assistance of China.
Tha Balochs have always been well disposed towards the US. Their anger
over the misuse of the US equipment given for anti-Al Qaeda operations by
Musharraf for killing the Baloch leaders is unlikely to turn them against
the US. However, the anti-Chinese anger in Balochistan is likely to
increase further.
There are already reports of widespread violence in Balochistan in the
wake of the martyrdom of Nawab Bugti and other brave freedom fighters,
resulting in the imposition of a curfew. The Baloch freedom struggle has
entered a new phase. The Pakistan Army and Air Force have shown that they
have had no lessons to learn from the consequences of the similar policies
followed by them in the pre-1971 East Pakistan.
In this hour of national tragedy, the Balochs have re-dedicated themselves
to their independence struggle and resolved to keep up their struggle till
freedom becomes a reality. The Balochs, like the Sindhis, the Mohajirs and
large sections of the Pashtuns, have always been the traditional friends
and well-wishers of India.
The Government of India should not hesitate to condemn the Pakistani
military's massacre of Nawab Bugti and other Baloch freedom fighters in
the strongest terms. Whatever be the attitude of the Indian policymakers,
the people of India will stand by the Balochs in their hour of tragedy and
re-dedication.
The names of Nawab Bugti and other Baloch martyrs will remain enshrined in
letters of gold in the history of independent Balochistan, when it becomes
a reality, as it will.
The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of
India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute for Topical Studies,
Chennai. E-mail:itschen36@gmail.com
B Raman
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
||||
Politics
The Baloch blunder
Editorial
THE INDIAN EXPRESS<
http://www.financialexpress.com
Posted online: Tuesday, August 29, 2006 at 1318 hours IST
AUGUST 29: The missile
attack launched by the Pakistan army on Baloch leader Nawab Akbar Bugti
has given a fresh lease of life to Balochistan’s long simmering insurgency
and put further strain on Pakistan’s fragile nation state.
The saner voices within Pakistan have already expressed the fear that it
could bring about what one national newspaper termed a “recrudescence of
nationalist sentiment” within Pakistan.
The consequences of the killing may take a while to play out, but already
rumblings of political discontent within Pakistan’s political mainstream
have merged with the full-throated anger of the Baloch insurgents. Not
only are Pakistan’s famous political exiles in a state of high exultation,
even Musharraf’s close political associate, Shujjat Hussain, appears to
have distanced himself from the attack. The Pakistan army may be very
gung-ho over the assassination, but the Musharraf government has had to
tone down its rhetoric on the issue.
It could be a moment that furthers the realisation within Pakistan that
stirring the ethnic pot is a strategy that is both dangerous and unwise.
For India it is important to read the moment right. It has to find the
balance between responding to a development that has serious consequences
for the stability of the entire region and keeping the rather etiolated
Indo-Pak peace process going, with Pervez Musharraf and Manmohan Singh
slated to meet in Havana two weeks down the line. India has officially
kept its nose out of the Balochistan insurgency and it is clearly not in
this country’s interest to get involved. At the same time it cannot but be
interested in the project of a democratic Pakistan.
The observation in the official Indian statement that “military force can
never solve political problems” would be read very differently across the
border, but it is nevertheless a useful principle for both countries to
iterate. India should also take enough care to ensure that its empathy for
the Baloch cause does not give an opportunity to Islamabad to either
discredit the movement or divide opposition leaders by laying them open to
the charge that they are toeing the Indian line.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rebel Leader Who Shook
Pakistan
Bugti joins Spartacus and Che Guevera in the history books
Published 2006-08-28 16:58 (KST)
"Let them win their battles, the Baluch will win the war!" This declaration portrays a heroic feeling of resistance. Similar declarations can be found everywhere in the history of human civilization. In ancient times, slaves like Spartacus challenged the Roman Empire; then in modern times Omar Mukhtar and Che Guevera challenged the oppressive rulers with such announcements.
But the above quote was not taken from any history book or epic
poem, but spoken in our own times just a few days ago by Baluch rebel
leader Nawab Akbar Khan Bugti, who fought until his last breath
against Pakistani security agencies. |
||||||
| ©2006 OhmyNews |
http://english.ohmynews.com/articleview/article_view.asp?at_code=355796&no=313741&rel_no=1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is Balochistan another
Bangladesh?
Col (retd) Anil Athale
http://in.rediff.com/
August 29, 2006
The killing of Baloch Nationalist leader Sardar Akbar Khan Bugti along
with two dozen of his followers on August 26 by the Pakistani army has
raised a storm in Balochistan.
Many see a close parallel between the happenings there and in erstwhile
East Pakistan in 1971, when it seceded and became Bangladesh. There was
the infamous massacre of the intellectuals/leadership at Dacca University.
Ironically, Akbar Khan and his Bugti tribe were considered closer to the
ruling establishment of Pakistan as opposed to the Mengal or Marri tribe
that was allied with the National Awami Party founded by 'Frontier Gandhi'
Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan.
Turmoil in Balochistan has a long history. It is the largest province of
Pakistan, but is very sparsely populated. In addition, it has almost all
of Pakistan's mineral and natural gas resources. Yet is also undoubtedly
the least developed part of Pakistan.
While Balochistan supplies the natural resources, the Balochis themselves
remained poor. This had bred a sense of grievance.
In 1971, at the height of the Bangladesh war, processions were taken out
in Quetta in favour of independence for Balochistan. Slogans were raised
praising Indira Gandhi and surprisingly, General Jagjit Singh Arora, who
was perceived as the liberator of Bangladesh. The first revolt in the
1970s was ruthlessly put down by the Pakistani army led by General Tikka
Khan, who earned the nickname of 'Butcher of Balochistan'.
Like the initial Six Point programme of the late Sheikh Mujibur Rehman of
Bangladesh, most Balochis agitated for regional autonomy and not
independence or secession. That this struggle was violent has more to do
with the tribal ethos and general lawlessness of Pakistan, rather than any
real evil intent.
Yet like Bangladesh, Pakistan, under military rule, has used purely
military means to solve a political problem. In the case of Bangladesh,
according to the report of the Hamidur Rehman Commission (appointed by the
Pakistan government), more than 300,000 Bangladeshis were killed in a span
of six months. Yet rather than end the revolt and solve the problem,
Pakistan lost its eastern wing.
Pakistan has also been freely using helicopter gunships and airpower
against its own people. It is interesting to compare Indian operations in
Jammu and Kashmir with this. We have never used airpower in Kashmir. The
reason is simply that it is a blunt instrument and the danger of
collateral damage is great.
Despite all the motivated anti-India propaganda, the total casualties do
not exceed 40,000 over 10 years in Kashmir (of which 2,000 are Indian
soldiers and many thousands are victims of terror strikes). Does it mean
that the Indian army uses rubber bullets?
The truth is that it is well understood in India that quelling an internal
unrest is a long haul, and massive force cannot be used indiscriminately.
Do the Pakistanis (and their sympathisers in India) realise that in this
brutality there is very little to choose between Israel's attacks on
Lebanon or Palestine and Pakistan?
The Indian approach towards the leaders of insurrection has also been very
different, be it the late Angami Zapu Phizo of Nagaland, Laldenga of the
Mizo National Front or even Ahmed Shah Geelani of Kashmir's pro-Pak
Jamaat-e-Islami.
As a matter of record, Geelani got a lease of life when he was treated for
cancer in Mumbai's Tata Memorial Centre (at the Indian taxpayers expense)
a few years ago. That he continues to spew venom at India and Indians
speaks volumes of his character.
Indians never went in after individuals. Maybe it has something to do with
the fact that Indians would rather follow the British model of Malaya
(under Sir Gerald Templer who successfully dealt with the Malayan
communist insurgency).
The Pakistani army, under the heavy influence of the Americans, is more
prone to follow the Vietnam model of body count and search and destroy
missions.
Obviously the Pakistani army does not want to learn from its own mistakes
in Bangladesh or its neighbour's success. When Musharraf calls it a 'great
victory' he betrays a 'company commander' mentality (using deductive
military logic of tactics for complex strategic and politico-military
issues). With this one event it seems Musharraf has used up his nine lives
and his physical or political continuity is in grave doubt.
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh should be well advised to avoid meeting him
in Cuba or the US since he is a likely to remain a 'lame duck' dictator
(despite his high sounding title of President). India's indirect
endorsement of him will alienate Baloch opinion as well as his likely
democratic or military successor.
Essentially Balochistan and Pakistan's tragedy is its inability to evolve
a federal structure. Autonomy of provinces is wrongly viewed as a threat
to national security. Our southern neighbour Sri Lanka suffers from
similar disease.
The creation of a set-up similar to India's provincial structure is
something the Tamils would be quite satisfied with notwithstanding their
demand for an independent Eelam. But the movement towards federalism in
Pakistan is stalled in the absence of true democracy, the only ultimate
solution (as advocated in Great Danger, Grand Opportunity by Inpad members
on rediff.com).
India's success in dealing with centrifugal forces owes a lot to our
federal structure where the states have a great degree of political and
economic freedom. The creation of linguistic provinces keeping in with the
wishes of people was the best thing that happened to India.
This was partly an accident as Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru was opposed to it.
It was after Potti Sriramulu fasted to death for the creation of Andhra
Pradesh that the floodgates to reorganisation of states were opened. The
reality of the Indian subcontinent or for that matter South Asia is that
many regional identities like Tamil, Marathi and Sikh have a long
historical and cultural context.
Baloch identity similarly goes back to pre-historic days and predates the
birth of Islam (the Brohi language is one of the oldest in the world). To
think that the killing of one man or wiping out the leadership would end
the problem is foolish.
However, Pakistan is unlikely to be ousted from Balochistan in a hurry.
The differences with the Bangladesh situation are quite obvious. Pakistan
suffered from a grave handicap of distance as well as the cutting off of
lines of communication in case of war in erstwhile East Pakistan.
Balochistan is a geographically contiguous part of Pakistan. External help
for the Balochis can at the most come from landlocked Afghanistan, and
with the heavy US and NATO presence there, even this is problematic. Thus
there are severe limitations on the the kind of external help the Balochis
can depend on. .
Both the Vietnam war in its final stages and the Afghan conflict clearly
proved that a conventional armed force cannot be defeated by guerrilla
fighters alone. In the case of Vietnam there was wholesale defection from
the South Vietnamese army that paved the way, a situation most unlikely in
Pakistan.
The Najibullah regime survived the Afghan guerrillas' onslaught for nearly
a year, and in the end it was the major defections by his forces and
direct Pakistani intervention that ultimately sealed his fate. In the
Bangladesh war as well, while the Mukti Bahini indeed was a great help,
the ultimate knockout blow was delivered by the regular Indian army.
Unless there is a radical change in the US/NATO approach to Pakistan, this
is unlikely to happen.
The most likely scenario is that guerrilla war will continue in
Balochistan and Balochis in other parts of Pakistan will carry out a
campaign of sabotage. The Pakistani state will continue to limp along.
Balochistan is not Bangladesh.
The author, a former Joint Director, War Studies Division at the
Ministry of Defence, has studied insurgencies in Mizoram, Kashmir, Sri
Lanka and Northern Ireland
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Killing Bugti is a big political mistake
M B Naqvi
Wednesday, August 30, 2006
The writer is a veteran journalist and freelance columnist.
http://www.thenews.com.pk
The government claims that Nawab Akbar Khan Bugti was not targeted and
killed by mistake. Even so it was a big political mistake. There were
persistent reports earlier that Bugti was going to be either killed or
arrested "shortly". Few will buy the statement that it was a mistaken
killing in view of all those published reports during the last fortnight
or more.
It was an operation that lasted several days. The government's case is
simple. Two helicopters were fired at and that required a riposte. No
doubt the authorities had some intelligence about the Bugti sardar. This
is what is suggested by so many published reports. For one thing the
official response was disproportionate. That is why one says it was a big
mistake. The government's position of establishing order -- there is no
law involved --is comprehensible but not necessarily correct.
Balochistan's state of law and order has been deplorable for some years
now; an insurgency of sorts has been going on. Who is responsible? Well,
there are two sides and both can be faulted for their methods. The
government's responsibility is even greater. It should have prevented the
emergence of insurgency by political methods.
The main Baloch grievance is political in nature that, except for the
short duration of Ataullah Mengal's government in the early 1970s, the
Balochistan governments have been nominees of Islamabad. Provincial
governments in Quetta have served the interests and the purposes of
Islamabad and the centre has not given as much in return to Balochistan as
it has taken out of Balochistan. This is nothing more than exploitation.
The Baloch have a grievance that natural gas is taken from Balochistan and
consumed in other provinces but that the royalties paid to the province
are small. Then there is the view that no central government has ever
cared for the development of this vast and arid province; it is still the
most underdeveloped area of Pakistan.
Killing Bugti is a big political mistake because he was not an ordinary
individual and symbolised Baloch nationalism. It is the consciousness of
an identity that one possesses on the basis of race, language, history,
religion or culture. Does anyone oppose the idea that identity with any
ethnic factor can cause a strong reaction? It is not a law and order
matter at all. The reaction will of course be proportionate to the offence
caused. While maintaining law and order is the responsibility of any
government, it should also know how to solve basic political problems by
political means.
The centre has also been very trigger-happy as far as Balochistan is
concerned. What is happening right now has been repeated before in the
past as well. It is not that the Baloch are unreasonable or too demanding.
One remembers any number of conversations with Attaullah Mengal, Bugti and
a few Marris. Their demands were quite reasonable and in fact modest
amounting to no more than being patiently and sympathetically heard by
Islamabad's top brass. Military action against them in the 1970s was
totally unjustified, no matter what the intelligence agencies then had
told the then government. The action that was taken was wrong because it
carried out against a democratic as well as moderate government that had
done nothing wrong.
Again, there is so much talk of a foreign hand particularly Afghanistan
and India. To think that any power will forcibly take Balochistan from
this country is ludicrous; think-tanks in other countries have noted
Pakistan's troubles on this matter and they know where it will end if
Pakistani authorities continue with their penchant for responding with the
gun to every political demand. Even if it were true that foreign hands
were involved, making a noise about it will not help.
At least in one respect, the Afghans and the US are right that the Taliban
in Pakistan do pose a threat to them in Afghanistan. It is Islamabad that
has to clearly choose between the war on terrorism and the Taliban. It
cannot hunt with the Americans and run with the Taliban. The best thing to
do is to have an inclusive democratic dispensation in all political views
can be accommodated, including those held by the unhappy and disillusioned
Baloch nationalists. The solution to the problem of extremism and
militancy can also be solved through such an inclusive democratic
dispensation, though it may be gradual.
We need to be careful. The country has already experienced major trauma in
1971 when the mishandling of East Pakistan created a new nation. The
demands of the Baloch also boil down to a share in decision-making and in
ending the exploitation of the region's resources for the benefit of
others and not the local population. These demands are fully justified.
One says nothing about the methods that were adopted by unhappy and
dissatisfied Baloch young men. One is opposed to violence in politics, all
violence, even by the state.
There is no reason why the Baloch should not be the true decision-makers
about their own affairs. They have to be stakeholders, not merely to be
informed from on high. It is the substance of power that is being
demanded. But the power that is to be given to them is their due and
should not be seen as coming at the expense of Punjabis, Sindhis or
Pathans. Regional governments should be true governments made by and for
local citizens. It is not for army generals or waderas from other
provinces to determine how the resources of a province are to be used.
What the government is required to do is to let the Baloch order and
reorder their own affairs without let or hindrance from others. They have
to be empowered to shape their own destiny. In addition, Islamabad ought
to create conditions in which the Baloch regard themselves as stakeholders
not only in Balochistan but also in Pakistan. If Pakistan is dear to those
who rule it, they should do what it takes so that the Baloch recognise
that. It is Islamabad which needs to adjust and not the other way around.
Email: mbnaqvi@cyber.net.pk
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
After Akbar Bugti, what?
By Zubeida Mustafa
http://www.dawn.com
August 30, 2006
NAWAB Akbar Khan Bugti is dead. His violent death at the hands of the
Pakistan army in a targeted military operation has given Balochistan the
martyr that it needed at this hour to rally people round the nationalist
movement and inject fresh vigour into it. Ironically, in his death Bugti?s
contribution to Baloch nationalism may prove to be greater than his role
in life.
His oppressive tribalism and brutal style of ruling over his clan drove
terror in the heart of many of his tribesmen and earned him enemies among
his own Baloch people. He was accused of not doing enough for his people
though he had been at the helm in his province ? once as governor under
Z.A. Bhutto and then as chief minister under Nawaz Sharif. Regarded as
Islamabad?s point man in the province, Bugti could have brought prosperity
and development to Baloch society if he had wanted to ? until he fell out
with the rulers. But all his failings will now be erased from public
memory as he is mourned as the hero who fought for Baloch nationalist
autonomy and honour.
The violent reaction to Bugti?s death in Balochistan and also the
Baloch-dominated areas of Sindh has not been entirely unexpected. Of
course, those in office have turned a blind eye to reality and are
insisting that all has been well in the aftermath of the events of August
26. But if General Musharraf had the political instincts of Nawab Bugti he
would have realised a long time ago that the issues that are disturbing
the Baloch now are no more of an economic nature that can be resolved by
pouring money into the marginalised province. Today, what is at stake is
the Baloch aspiration to have decision-making power in their own affairs
and on issues that concern them.
For them, what is important is not that Gwadar is developed as a modern
port but that the Baloch should exercise control over the process of
formulating and executing a policy in respect of Gwadar. The presence of
the Frontier Constabulary in their home province is another provocation
because it is a constant reminder that the Baloch have no hold over their
own territory. Lack of control over their own natural resources such as
the gas at Sui has also irked the nationalists. These issues may be beyond
the comprehension of a non-political government that is constantly
boasting of the colossal funds it is pouring into the development of
Balochistan.
Problems of lawlessness and militancy as posed by Balochistan cannot be
resolved by economic bribery as the British would vouch for. They paid
massive sums to the tribes in the North West Frontier yet could at the
most pacify them for brief periods. Neither can turbulent tribal societies
be subjugated militarily to force them into submission, as the Musharraf
government is confident that it can do. It will hopefully come a round to
seeing the folly of such an approach. The only way of pacifying the Baloch
is by talking to them and treating them with due respect. This is what the
government was being advised to do all along.
In fact, those leaders of the ruling PML-Q with some political
understanding had been suggesting to General Musharraf to initiate a
dialogue with Akbar Bugti. Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain, PML-Q?s president,
even formed a parliamentary committee when he was the caretaker prime
minister in 2004 and visited Akbar Bugti in his stronghold in Dera Bugti.
Two subcommittees were set up. The one headed by Mushahid Hussain, PML-Q?s
secretary general, prepared a report with some very sensible proposals.
That entailed a number of visits and meetings with various sections of the
Baloch population.
But this process was not allowed to go ahead and the recommendations were
not implemented. The ceasefire that had been negotiated broke down and the
dialogue came to an abrupt end. The rulers in Islamabad were convinced
that they could divide the Baloch and militarily crush the intransigent
sections. But that strategy has failed. The jirga held last week that
declared support for the president was stage-managed. It is unlikely that
this pro-establishment jirga will stand up now to condemn Bugti for his
shortcomings. He will be glorified and idealised even by his detractors as
the champion of Baloch nationalism, just as members of the ruling party
have expressed shock at his death.
Bugti was a shrewd politician and could be tackled only by another
politician shrewder than him. Pervez Musharraf was no match because army
generals do not negotiate with their enemies. They fight them in a bid to
vanquish them. That approach has proved to be lethal.
The question that is haunting every thinking mind in Pakistan is: what
next after Bugti? Are the rioting and turbulence that have erupted a
foreboding of worse to come? Those who still remember the traumatic events
of 1971 are asking: will history repeat itself? It is small comfort that
at least the people are allowed to speak out against what is happening in
Balochistan. Bangladesh had gone unwept and unsung.
But if this articulation of public discontent on what the army is doing in
Balochistan has no impact on the governments thinking, this freedom of
expression will bring no credit to the military rulers. At the same time,
the opposition forces will be quick to capitalise on the crisis which will
become their rallying cry. With so many contradictory issues muddying
politics in Pakistan, one cannot even predict a steady movement towards a
stable democracy.
What is more, the repercussions of Bugtis death will be felt far and wide.
Pakistan?s relations with India which had been on the slide for quite some
time ? more so since the serial bomb explosions in Mumbai in July 2006 ?
can be expected to deteriorate further. The Pakistan government?s
conviction ? or at least what it says ? is that the Baloch problem is
rooted in India?s policy of meddling in the region. Hence the
recriminations that have already started and will hardly benefit
India-Pakistan relations. The IPI will now receive a quiet burial and
Pakistan will find Iran distancing itself from Islamabad. This hardly
augurs well for our foreign policy.
Mercifully, the US State Department has been very correct in its stance on
Balochistan. It has expressed its hope that the dispute will be settled
within the framework of a strong and unified Pakistan. It also added that
Bugti?s death will have no effect on US-Pakistan relations. That will be
reassuring for General Musharraf. But he cannot be complacent given the
article and map published in the
US Armed Forces Journal which show a ?Free Balochistan? as a result of
the redefining of the boundaries in the region on religious and ethnic
lines. The Americans have denied that they have any such plans. But can
one believe them?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How the Death of a Leader
Creates a Bigger Problem for Pakistan
The aftermath of killing tribal leader
Nawab Akbar Bugti exposes Musharraf's difficulties in trying to control
the country's volatile regions
By ARYN BAKER
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1449003,00.html
Posted Tuesday, Aug. 29, 2006
When Nawab Akbar Bugti was killed in a military operation in Pakistan's
restive Baluchistan province on Saturday, Pakistan's security forces may
have thought they were ridding themselves of a particularly annoying
problem that has plagued Islamabad for the past two years. As it turns
out, they only made things worse.
Bugti, 79, was one of three Baluch tribal leaders leading an armed
uprising against the central government that has seen more than 400
officials and military personnel dead in recent months. The violence has
led to the displacement of thousands of ethnic Baluch, the interruption of
vital gas supplies (Pakistan's principal gas pipeline runs through the
center of the province), and the diversion of President Pervez Musharraf's
already overstretched army. The fight is about resources. The province of
Baluchistan, which is rich in oil and gas, is also home to a fiercely
independent and distinct ethnic group that spans parts of Pakistan, Iran
and Afghanistan. The largely impoverished Baluch see little benefit from
those resources, and Bugti had long demanded royalties from the central
government for development of the neglected region.
But Bugti was not simply the leader of a 300,000-strong tribe of alienated
Baluch. He was also a former provincial governor, a former chief minister
and the moderate leader of a well-recognized political party. Not since
the Supreme Court-ordered hanging of former Prime Minister and President
Zulfikar Ali Bhutto following a military coup in 1977 has such a
mainstream political leader been killed at the behest of the Pakistani
government. As the spontaneous riots spreading across the country can
attest, Bugti was not just a local, or even a Baluch hero, but a
nationally respected politician whose cause resonated throughout the
country.
In using force to take out the small problem of an avowedly secular and
anti-Taliban insurgent group (with reasonable demands, if not reasonable
means), the military-led government of President Pervez Musharraf may find
that it has simply highlighted the larger issue of military rule on the
day before Musharraf's hand-picked Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz faces a
vote of no-confidence in Parliament. As an editorial in Dawn, a highly
respected English-language newspaper points out, Bugti's death will only
lead to a sharp deterioration in the already heated government-opposition
relations: "It doesn't do the state any good to be remembered as an
executioner of former prime ministers and chief ministers."
Pakistani security forces may have thought that in killing Bugti they
could curtail growing anti-government sentiment in Baluch areas
indifferent to his cause. Instead, many Baluch will see his death as proof
that the federal government will never give them the fair treatment they
feel they are owed. Around 500 people have been detained in riots
throughout the province, and schools have been ordered closed for three
days in anticipation of more unrest. Train service in and out of the area
has been restricted. More alarmingly, Baluch protestors in Quetta, the
provincial capital, and Karachi, the capital of neighboring Sindh
province, have been targeting Punjabi-owned properties and businesses,
exacerbating already volatile ethnic divisions throughout country. Large
segments of Pakistan's army come from Punjab, home to the nation's
capital, Islamabad, and other groups in Pakistan often resent Punjabis for
the perceived benefits of government preference.
A coalition of opposition groups, the Alliance for the Restoration of
Democracy (ARD), has called the attack on Bugti a tragedy, saying that
General Musharraf's choice of a military operation over dialogue only
proves that the military dictator has become a security risk for the
country. Not only that, says Samina Ahmed, South Asia Director of the
International Crisis Group, the government's military response to the
question of states' rights comes at a very delicate moment. For the past
several years, Musharraf has been struggling to bring the historically
autonomous Federally Administered Tribal Areas under central control. The
notoriously lawless region, running along the mountainous border with
Afghanistan, is said to shelter Taliban and al-Qaeda leadership and
militant training camps, though the Pakistani government denies this.
Local tribal leaders have been fiercely resistant to calls to join the
Pakistani federation; Bugti's death and the accompanying military action
will only strengthen that resolve.
At an ARD press conference Sunday attended by Pakistani journalists, a
member of deposed Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif's PML-N party said: "Bullets
don't solve problems; they create problems," pointing out that a
"martyred" leader will only strengthen the insurgency's cause. Bugti was
prepared for just that.
This past May Bugti spoke
with TIME by satellite phone from the mountain refuge that eventually
became his tomb. "It's better to die — as the
Americans say — with your spurs on," he said. "Instead of a slow death in
bed, I'd rather death come to me while I'm fighting for a purpose." Bugti
got his wish. And President Musharraf now has a much bigger problem
on his hands.
With reporting by Ghulam Hasnain/Karachi and Tim McGirk