Genesis of
Balochistan unrest
Mohammad Jamil
To identify the causes of genesis of Balochistan’s problem, it is
important to understand the situation during British Raj.
In 1877, at the proclamation of Queen Victoria as Empress, around 700
princely states of India enjoyed treaty relations with the British Crown.
British India had appointed regents (Britons) in the princely states to oversee
the nawabs and also to ensure that no rebellion-like situation emerges. By the
Indian Independence Act 1947, the British gave up the suzerainty of the states
and left to the free will of each to merge with India or Pakistan. After independence,
Governor General of India Lord Mountbatten had convened meeting (Darbar) of the
chamber of princely states, who were cajoled that if they signed the agreement
seceding the states they would be given handsome stipends. And in case they
disagreed they would get nothing. Anyhow, Indian government took over the
princely states and also abolished landlordism. As a consequence, the rulers of
princely states were allowed to retain titles and official residences but had
to surrender their land to the government.
In 1975, the stipend or the privy-purse was also abolished and the
princely states in India ceased to exist as recognized political entity.
They were allowed to keep only one palace and surrender more than one
palaces to the government. In Pakistan neither princely states nor landlordism
were abolished and they continued to rule roost till 1972 when all princely
titles were abolished and merged with the related provinces of the Federation.
It is important to refer to the position in the times of undivided India. Khan
of Qalat was addressed as khan of khans, and all sardars of Balochistan
considered him as their elder and respected him. Through a treaty, Khan of
Qalat had given large swathes of land for the bases to the British forces, and
Quetta municipality was part of it, which had passed a resolution to merge with
Pakistan. Reportedly, Khan of Qalat had given his consent to join Pakistan
after he realized that some important Baloch sardars support the move to join
Pakistan.
Last year, Waseem Altaf had written an article under the title
‘Accession at gunpoint’. And as the title suggested the author was convinced
that Balochistan’s accession was sought by Pakistan under duress. The treatise
was an amalgam of facts and fiction; nevertheless it was informative in many
ways. He wrote: “During British Raj Balochistan did not enjoy the status of a
province but comprised four princely states namely: Makran, Kharan, Lasbela and
Kalat. The Khan of Kalat was the Head of the Confederacy. The northern areas of
Balochistan including Bolan Pass, Quetta, Nushki and Naseerabad were leased out
to Britain, which were later, named as British Balochistan. However, more
importantly, the Khan had agreed with Jinnah that an understanding must be
reached between Kalat and Pakistan on defense, foreign affairs and
communications”.
It has to be mentioned that Khan of Kalat was head of a small tribe
namely Brohi, who had assured the British Raj that nobody would create problems
for it. Thus he was made head of the Confederacy by the British to extend its
influence in the region and elsewhere.
With this background, one should carefully analyse and evaluate as to
what Pakistan has given to sardars, khawaneen, feudal lords and new-rich
industrialists and what they have given to Pakistan and the people of Pakistan.
There is no denying that Balochistan was neglected during British Raj, and
after independence also successive governments either did not seriously try to
develop Balochistan, FATA and Northern Areas or the local elite did not allow
the development effort to succeed. The formation of the One Unit in 1956
created doubts in the minds of people from smaller provinces who thought that
their culture and language were under threat.
However, common Baloch people understood their exploitation by the
sardars and excesses perpetrated by them. It goes without saying that people of
Balochistan have the first right over minerals and other natural resources of
Balochistan. Whereas sardars are getting their share in form of royalties and enjoy
all good things of life, it is difficult for the wretched of the earth to keep
their body and soul together.
Balochistan has seen many an insurgency or rebellion in the past, and
once again it is in the throes of violence. When queer things happen in FATA,
NWFP and Balochistan and given the information that terrorist activities of
groups are supported or sponsored by foreigners, the government should
seriously investigate into the matter and adopt a strategy to counter them. The
situation obtaining in the province from the present turmoil, acts of
terrorism, accusations that Pakistan is ensconcing terrorists and the
expression of concern by the US and the West over Pakistan’s nuclear assets
reminds us of similar modus operandi adopted by the US before invading Iraq on
the pretext of its possession of chemical and biological weapons. After
terrorists’ attacks on GHQ, Mehran Naval base and the recent attack on PAF base
Kamra, the US administration, US Generals and think tanks raised the bogey of
danger that Pakistan nukes may fall into militants’ hands, which is
preposterous and smacks of their evil intentions.
The people of Balochistan have been waging struggle for their rights
ever since the British left. There could have been some justification for
resistance during 1950s and 1960s, when they were under strong center and
unitary form of government. But once the One-Unit was done away with and
complete provincial status was given to Balochistan, the struggle should have
ended. But fact of the matter is that there has been a sort of rebellion
whenever there was an elected government. However, the long dormant crisis
erupted into a brutal confrontation with the Center in 1973 when late Zulfikar
Ali Bhutto had tried to establish educational institutions and construction of
roads in Balochistan. The insurgency lasted for four years from 1973 to 1977,
and it was after promulgation of Martial Law by General Zia-ul-Haq that
sedition cases were withdrawn against Baloch sardars.
However, sardars and feudal chiefs thrive even amid, what they call the
Centre’s injustices and the clashes between them and the security forces. It is
unfortunate that the civil society does not consider it worthwhile to comment
on what sardars have been doing to their people.
المشاركات
0 التعليقات:
إرسال تعليق