|
Outcome of Bugti episode
September 23, 2006
By Tariq Fatemi http://www.dawn.com/
WHILE in America, I learnt of the death of Nawab Akbar Khan Bugti at the
hands of Pakistan’s security forces. Academicians and South Asia experts
were disturbed enough for them to contact me for my assessment of the event.
What could I tell them? Nearly four decades of discipline imposed by the
rigours of diplomatic service had taught me to be cautious and circumspect,
especially when commenting on events at home. Moreover, I have always been
uneasy with criticism of the country and its policies, while abroad.
It is, nevertheless, a fact that Bugti’s death is a major political
development and most likely to cast a shadow on national politics for
decades to come. Whether it was an accidental death or pre-meditated
elimination matters little. As far as the people of Pakistan, specially
those of the three minority provinces, are concerned, the military
leadership has eliminated a charismatic spokesman of an angry and alienated
minority. Given the lingering bitterness in Sindh over the hanging of Mr
Bhutto, the nawab’s death will add to the growing perception that the
federal government does not tolerate popular leaders, particularly those
that espouse the cause of smaller provinces.
Even after his death, the government has not refrained from trying to
besmirch Bugti’s name and character. In fact, there appears to be a
well-orchestrated plan to portray the late Baloch leader as a common
criminal. Tales of his cruelty, blackmail, intimidation and murderous traits
are being circulated. While some of these colourful stories about Bugti’s
personality and character may be true, they have little relevance to the
situation created by his death.
In the midst of all these claims and counter-claims, there are certain
incontrovertible facts that cannot be denied. These relate primarily to the
profound sense of alienation among the Baloch over the past many years. No
single measure, nor any single government, can be held responsible. Most
national governments and many of the provincial governments of Balochistan
have been singly and jointly responsible for the current malaise. They have
colluded and conspired to deny the people of the province not only their
rightful share in the country’s economic resources, but also their
legitimate role in national political life.
An obvious example of this discriminatory policy has been that even though
vast deposits of natural gas, discovered in the 1950s in Sui, warm homes and
offices all over the country, Balochistan remains the least covered by gas
pipelines. Thus, while the rest of the country has the advantage of access
to a relatively cheap source of energy, the people of Balochistan continues
to shiver through the dark winter nights. Also, the royalties received by
Balochistan for its gas are much lower than those given to Sindh or Punjab
for gas extracted from their fields. Balochistan’s copper, gold, granite and
other rich mineral resources, too, have been exploited with little advantage
to the Baloch.
As regards the political grievances of the Baloch, these are many and mostly
genuine. The Baloch claim, with good reason, that except for the short
duration of Ataullah Mengal’s government in the early 1970s, Balochistan
governments have been nominated by Islamabad, serving the interests of the
centre, rather than those of the province.
Given this background, Bugti’s personal life becomes irrelevant in the
context of what he had come to represent to the people of his province.
While in the myopic view of Islamabad, he represented the old, archaic,
tribal order; to the Baloch, his was the voice that articulated the anger
and alienation felt deeply all over the province.
Few would care to now recall that for years, he was a moderate, ever willing
to work with the centre. Until recently, he had not abandoned the path of
dialogue and reconciliation and if only Islamabad had found it fit to
implement the recommendations of the government, this tragedy could have
been averted. It is, therefore, ironic that Islamabad, by its ill
thought-out policies, should have helped restore Bugti’s tarnished
credentials. In his death, he has come to symbolise Baloch nationalism. In
that sense, he died a glorious death, feared by his enemies, but loved by
his people.
Islamabad has taken refuge behind the plea that it was only engaged in
maintaining law and order in the province, but there are other ways of doing
so, rather than going about eliminating political leaders and destroying
their ancestral homes. And how does one explain the meanness with which the
government went about the business of burying Bugti’s body, without showing
any consideration for the feelings of his family, friends and well-wishers?
Not surprisingly, the government has also spoken of foreign involvement in
the Balochistan crisis. This is an old story that no one takes seriously.
Every time the centre has wanted to dismiss a provincial government, whether
in East Pakistan, Sindh or Balochistan, it has come out with allegations of
foreign involvement. Even the venerated East Pakistani leader Maulvi Fazlul
Haq was accused of being an Indian agent when Islamabad decided to move
against him. Soon thereafter, he was appointed the country’s interior
minister. The government’s 13-page fact sheet on Bugti’s “misdemeanours”,
lacks credibility and reminds us of numerous such “white papers” prepared in
the past, most of which were consigned to the dust heap soon thereafter by
the authors themselves.
India’s reaction to Bugti’s killing was contained in an official statement,
which described the event as an “unfortunate killing”. At the same time, the
Indian statement spoke of “continuing operations in Balochistan that
underlined the need for peaceful dialogue to address the grievances and
aspirations of the people of Balochistan”. It warned that “military force
can never solve political problems”. Not surprisingly, Pakistan rejected the
Indian statement and advised Delhi to mind its own business and focus on
putting its own house in order.
What is disappointing is that the government should have now chosen to bring
India into the equation, with the foreign office spokesperson accusing Delhi
of trying to destabilise Pakistan. Indian consulates in Afghanistan are
alleged to be taking advantage of their location close to Pakistan’s
frontiers, to engage in activities aimed at destabilising Pakistan. The
newspapers have also reported that General Musharraf informed a high-level
meeting about the routes through which terrorists were bringing in their
arms.
The president’s statement absolves the Afghan government of any involvement
against Pakistan. We have, however, not been told as to whether these
charges were ever taken up in official talks with India. In any case, with
India’s intelligence agencies being accused of pumping arms and money into
Balochistan, and Delhi convinced that our “boys” continue to maintain their
linkages with the Kashmiri “jihadis”, it is difficult to see how the peace
process can move beyond confidence-building measures to negotiations on
political differences.
Not being privy to confidential information, it is not possible to comment
on the allegations of foreign involvement in Balochistan. Even if true,
giving it publicity will neither solve the problem in Balochistan, nor send
the right signal abroad. If anything, it will encourage other countries to
think of similar initiatives, because it is in the nature of inter-state
relations, especially for neighbours and major powers, to fish in troubled
waters. If such an opportunity is available in a resource-rich and
strategically important area such as Balochistan, it would be surprising if
our neighbours were not to take advantage of a situation that we helped
create.
In this context, there is some concern in Pakistan about a recent article in
the ‘US Armed Forces Journal’ by Ralph Peters, which called Pakistan an
“unnatural state” and which appears to suggest that the disintegration of
Pakistan may not be such a bad thing. Does it reflect the views of the
administration? I do not think so. In the US it is not uncommon for
academicians or even officials to be making outlandish suggestions. They
become important only when they are adopted as policy, but there is no
reason to believe that the Americans would see any advantage in the current
turmoil in Balochistan. But this is as of now.
If the problems were to exacerbate, or if the US saw other powers getting
involved, it would surely try to ensure that its interests are not hurt in
any way. It is in this context that some analysts in the US have raised
questions about the scale of Chinese involvement in the province and in
particular over what its presence in the Gwadar port would mean for Chinese
influence in the Gulf. We can, therefore, expect the Americans to closely
monitor developments in the province.
Whatever the case, there is no doubt that the current insurgency in
Balochistan has encouraged some Indian analysts to see in it an opportunity
to apply renewed pressure on Islamabad. In their view, Balochistan has
“become a soft spot in Pakistan’s under-belly”. They are hoping that
continuing turmoil in this key province and the growing disquiet in Pakistan
over the country’s commitment to the war on terror will encourage rethinking
in Washington about the usefulness of the current dispensation in Islamabad.
This group would, therefore, favour going slow on the dialogue process so as
to see what effect the disturbances have on the centre. There are others who
believe that Pakistan will be able to wipe out the Baloch resistance, and
that Delhi should, therefore, continue to maintain its relations with
Pakistan on the basis of “business as usual”.
Whatever the truth in these speculations, as long as Balochistan remains
disturbed, major powers will continue to take an interest in it.
International study groups and think tanks are also focusing on the issue.
While in Washington, I gathered that the Brookings Institution, a highly
influential think tank, has brought in a well-known French scholar on
sabbatical to examine the issue of Balochistan in depth. The Brussels-based
International Crisis Group last week came out with a detailed report on
Balochistan.
Whatever one’s views of the ICG, there is no doubt that it carries great
credibility in western capitals. Moreover, the report contains some
constructive recommendations that Islamabad would do well to examine. These
include an end to military action, respect for the democratic rights of
Baloch opposition leaders and activists and an end to “intimidation,
torture, arbitrary arrests, disappearances and extra-judicial killings”.
More importantly, the report calls on the government to “begin immediately a
dialogue with all regional and national level political parties on ways of
solving the crisis and creating a favourable environment for such a
dialogue”.
There is, therefore, an urgent need for the government to abandon its
preference for military-oriented, short-term remedies and instead opt for a
well-thought out, long-term strategy, for dealing with the situation in
Balochistan. Half-baked, piecemeal gestures and pronouncements are not going
to work. The Baloch must not only be given the full autonomy promised to
them repeatedly, but the ability to exercise power effectively and
comprehensively. Most importantly, the military option must be ruled out
publicly and irrevocably, now and forever.
The writer is a former ambassador.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WBJA fully supports President
Karzai 23-09-2006
By Ahmar Mustikhan
WASHINGTON DC --- World Baloch
Jewish Alliance convener and journalist Ahmar Mustikhan has fully supported
Afghan President's statements at the United Nations that Pakistan was
training the terrorists for attacks inside Afghanistan and is a sanctuary of
Al Qaeda and Talba'an.
In a letter to Afghanistan' s ambassador to the United States Excellency
Said T. Jawad, Mustikhan urged the Afghan ambassador to emphasise on
President Bush that Islamic terrorists are wearing Pakistan army uniforms.
"We the Baloch diaspora fully support President Hamid Karzai's stand that
Pakistan is behind the upsurge of terrorist actions against Afghanistan, a
fledging democracy that is trying to rebuild after more than quarter century
of war," Mustikhan said.
The Baloch diaspora, including those within Pakistan and Iran, stand
resolutely with the government and people of Afghanistan, under the able
leadership of President Abdul Hamid Karzai, at this time of their need.
He said the Baloch fully support President Karzai's statement that Pakistan
is ‘training a snake that can also bite the trainer.’
According to a news report addressing the US Council on Foreign Relations on
Thursday, President Karzai said that Pakistan’s toleration of pro-Taliban
militants had contributed to Afghanistan’s instability.
"This is exactly we Baloch nationalists are trying to tell the world, that
Pakistan is part of the problem, not part of the solution," Mustikhan said.
President Karzai rightfully said that cooperating with terrorists was like
‘trying to train a snake against somebody else.’ President Karzai said :
“You cannot train a snake. It will come and bite you.”
It is unfortunate that when the despicable Taliba'an regime was in power in
Afghanistan, Pakistan army generals including former I.S.I chief Hameed Gul
used to proudly claim Afghanistan had become the fifth province of Pakistan.
"Not many people know, but within Pakistan army Hamid Gul has been the hero
for coup leader General Pervez Mushharraf. There is absolutely no doubts in
my mind Hameed Gul is to this day closely connected with both bin Laden and
Mullah Omar," Mustikhan said.
He said President Karzai has also correctly pointed out Musharraf is
encouraging religious parties to maintain political power.
He drew the attention of the Afghan ambassador to the historic gathering of
the traditional Upper House of Balochistan Parliament, the Shahi Jirga, that
met under the leadership of the Khan of Kalat His Highness Mir Suleman Daud
on September 21.
"You might be knowing the Baloch are now going to the International Court of
Justice to seek the forced annexation of their land on March 27, 1948,"
Mustikhan informed the ambassador. "We shall appreciate whatver help and
support the government of Afghanistan can provide to the people of
Balochistan in this matter."
The WBJA convener said Pakistan army is not only hands in gloves with the
Islamic terrorists, but their soldiers are themselves Islamic terrorists in
army uniform. "I do hope President Karzai would raise this issue at the
joint meeting with President Bush on September 27. "
Mustikhan reiterated Baloch all over the world over fully support President
Karzai and the valiant people of Afghanistan against Pakistani machinations
and General Musharraf's double-faced policy.
Source BalochUnity Yahoo Group
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
At Home, Tehran Deals With a
Restive Arab Minority
The New York Times-Michael
Slackman Khuzestan
is a place that illustrates the contradictions that can breed anger. The
region sits atop most of the country’s oil wealth, yet its Arab residents
are mostly poor. At the same time, many Arabs complain that they see their
country’s wealth helping to rebuild Lebanon.
September 22, 2006
By
MICHAEL SLACKMAN
TEHRAN — “Help my young child —
please help me,” cried Yabrra Banitamim, 65, in a conference room in the
north of this city crowded with a dozen relatives of two men found guilty of
participating in a string of deadly bombings in Iran.
The men, Malek Banitamim, 30, and Ghasem Sallamat, 42, are from Khuzestan
Province, in the country’s southwest. They are Arabs in a country that is
predominantly Persian and that is accused by segments of its Arab population
of treating them like second-class citizens, thereby creating a separatist
backlash.
Iran wants to be a leader in the Islamic world, spreading its reach and
influence among Arabs and Indonesians, Sunnis and Shiites. And with its
support for Hezbollah in Lebanon and its defiance of the West, it has made
some progress.
But at home, Iran has often had to labor to unify its own people under one
national identity, restricting the expression of ethnic variations — like
languages — that it views as undermining that unity. The problem is often
most apparent with its Arabs.
“There is a contradiction in Iran’s behavior toward Arab countries and
toward the Arabs in the south of Iran,” said Mustafa el-Labbad, an expert in
Iranian affairs who is based in Cairo.
Iran is a multiethnic nation. More than half of its 70 million people are
Persian, and about 3 percent are Arabs. Other groups include the Azeris,
Kurds, Turkmen, Baluchis and Lurs. Iran has recently faced strong protests
from some ethnic groups, like the Azeris, with several demanding greater
autonomy and cultural freedom.
In the Arab region, the authorities say, separatist groups became violent
last year, setting off a string of terrorist bombs that killed or wounded
many people. Mr. Banitamim and Mr. Sallamat were convicted and ordered
hanged for their involvement in those attacks.
But to relatives of these men it is impossible to talk only about the crimes
they were charged with. Their families see the acts of terrorism as
intimately linked with the frustration and lack of hope that stems from the
poverty that they say is forced on them by a majority that discriminates.
This is a reality that the Iranian authorities have tried, but not
succeeded, in reconciling.
“The Islamic Republic is dealing with its own terrorism problem the same way
the U.S. is dealing with Al Qaeda,” said Emad Baghi, a former cleric who now
heads the Tehran-based Organization for the Defense of Prisoners’ Rights.
What he meant, he said, was that both governments were using force rather
than understanding.
Mr. Banitamim and Mr. Sallamat were arrested on March 11, along with 15
other men and two women. Six of that group remain under investigation, while
the rest have been convicted and sentenced to death, the relatives said.
Fearful and frustrated, more than 150 family members and friends of the
convicted came to Tehran to urge the authorities to lift the death
sentences. Their first stop was to visit Mr. Baghi.
“The prisoners are sentenced to death because of their confessions,” said
Mr. Banitamim’s older brother Yaghoub, as he opened the conversation with
Mr. Baghi. “Their confessions were made under torture. They didn’t do
anything.”
Mr. Baghi, who spends his days listening to the sorrows of prisoners’
families, gently asked if, indeed, the men were part of the organization
that had been connected to bombings in Ahvaz, the capital of Khuzestan. “We
don’t know,” the brother said, his gaze cast down.
Then, perhaps aware that Mr. Baghi already knew the answer, that the men
were members of the group, he said: “They can sentence him to life in
prison. We just want to stop the execution.”
Iranian officials insist that there is no discrimination against Arabs or,
for that matter, any of Iran’s ethnic minorities. They note, for example,
that classical Arabic is taught in schools. They point out that the
country’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, is of Azeri descent.
And they accuse Western governments of financing and helping to incite
groups responsible for the violence in Ahvaz. That charge may sound
self-serving, but a European diplomat in Tehran said intelligence reports
from the diplomat’s home capital confirmed that there was Western support
for at least one of the separatist groups.
But that has not diminished what many Iranians say is the broader need to
address the social, political and cultural concerns of many ethnic groups,
including Arabs. “I believe,” Mr. Baghi said, “that instead of labeling
people terrorists, we should also try to understand the reason why.”
Khuzestan is a place that illustrates the contradictions that can breed
anger. The region sits atop most of the country’s oil wealth, yet its Arab
residents are mostly poor. At the same time, many Arabs complain that they
see their country’s wealth helping to rebuild Lebanon.
The London-based pan-Arab newspaper Al Sharq al Awsat recently reported that
in Khuzestan, “residents launched slogans condemning Hezbollah and the
government and asked for the rebuilding of their own destroyed homes instead
of interference in the internal affairs of Lebanon.”
Similar grievances could be heard from the relatives of the condemned men.
“We suffered a lot because of the war with Iraq,” said Mr. Sallamat’s wife,
Samira, referring to Khuzestan’s proximity to the border with Iraq. “This is
not fair. We have done nothing wrong. God knows we’ve done nothing wrong.”
Mr. Baghi could do no more than advise her on a strategy. But he represented
an authority figure, a bridge from the deprivation of Ahvaz to the power of
Tehran. Her anger exploded. “Our problems are not only economic, they are
cultural,” she complained. “They even find fault with the way we dress.” The
“they” she was referring to were her Persian neighbors.
The complaints, the crying, the charges of discrimination went on around the
room. A child’s eyes filled with tears every time someone mentioned that his
father was to be hanged, or that his relatives could not find work because,
the charge went, they were Arab.
When the relatives left, Mr. Baghi cautioned against sympathy. He said that
the terrorists had taken a video of the explosions and that it had fallen
into the hands of the authorities.
But it is also often much easier to make friends with strangers than to
settle differences with people living under the same roof. Mr. Labbad of
Egypt said that was exactly the case with Iran. When Iran addresses Arabs
outside its borders, he said, it can focus on common enemies in the United
States and Israel. It has no obligation beyond giving voice to feelings that
already exist.
But when it comes to its own Arab population, its first responsibility is to
provide life’s essentials — food, work and shelter. And that is what the
families of the two condemned men tried to say, why the grievance over the
sentence had become a catalyst for venting their frustrations.
“I have nine brothers and sisters, and out of all of us one brother — the
brother who was arrested — was working,” said Yaghoub Banitamim. “What is
the reason? Only because we are Arabs.”
|