| Submit your comments on this article |
| Afghanistan/South Asia |
| Baloch shadow over China-Pakistan ties |
| 2005-04-20 |
| EFL The decision by Pakistani and Chinese authorities to cancel the program for the formal inauguration of the newly constructed Gwadar port by Chinese Prime Minister Wen Jiabao during his recent visit to Pakistan gave a clear indication of the further deterioration in the situation in Balochistan. Though the Pakistani authorities have attributed the decision to serious damage to the roads in the area due to the recent heavy floods in some parts of the province, Pakistani media have reported that the cancellation was for security reasons. It is said that the Pakistani authorities were worried that the Baloch nationalists, who have been opposing the port, might stage a spectacular incident during Wen's visit to the province to draw world attention to their opposition. On the other hand, the Chinese were reportedly worried that the Uighur terrorists, who have been sheltered by the Taliban in its camps in the province, could pose a threat to Wen. Details are only now available of the 10-hour-long battle between the Frontier Corps (FC) troops and Balochi nationalists belonging to the Bugti tribe on March 17. Twenty-eight members of the Bugti tribe and 33 Hindus living under the protection of the tribe were killed during the exchange of fire. Of the Hindus killed, 19 were children. Since this incident, there has been an exodus of Hindus from Balochistan into Sindh. Even earlier, the military-intelligence establishment had forcibly removed a large number of Hindus and some Sikhs who were living in the Gwadar and other areas on the Mekran coast, since it viewed them as a possible threat to the security of the port. The prestigious Friday Times of Lahore has reported as follows in its issue for the week ending March 31: "Because of the clash, a large number of Hindu residents of Dera Bugti have reportedly migrated to Sindh's Khandkot, Kashmore and Jacobabad towns ... Hundreds of Hindus and Sikhs have migrated to the towns and villages of Sindh and Balochistan adjacent to Dera Bugti. There are still many who have sent off their families, but stayed back themselves, to lend support to Akbar Bugti [leader of the tribe], whose ancestors have protected them for over 400 years." I had a feeling the local Hindus would be sympathetic to the Baluchi uprising. Old Bugti must be happy that his serfs are so loyal too. While the Baloch nationalists have claimed to have killed 35 FC personnel in the clash, the FC has asserted that it lost only eight. According to the Baloch nationalists, during the clash of March 17 and thereafter, the Pakistan army and the FC have diverted to Balochistan from South Waziristan in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas some of the troops deployed there for operations against anti-US foreign mercenaries and much of the equipment given by the US for use against the remnants of al-Qaeda, such as helicopter gunships and communication equipment. This equipment is now being used to crush the Baloch nationalists. To enable it to focus on its campaign against Baloch nationalists, the Pakistan army has reached a ceasefire agreement against the leaders of the pro-al Qaeda tribes in South Waziristan, after paying them large amounts as bribes in return for a promise by them that they would not indulge in any violent incidents in South Waziristan when the army was engaged in its counter-insurgency operations in Balochistan. Islamists have historically been used by the State in Muslim nations when there is a need to combat separatism, since the Islamists believe there should only be one Islamic state, they are almost always loyalists, whether in Bangladesh, Indonesia or Kurdistan. Musharraf has embarked on a three-pronged strategy. First, to remain firm in his determination to go ahead with the construction of new military cantonments in Balochistan and Gwadar and other projects involving non-Baloch labor to which the Baloch nationalists are opposed. Second, to show flexibility in settling the grievances of the individual tribes in matters relating to their tribal rights with regard to issues such as payment of royalties for the utilization of the natural resources found in their territory by entering into separate negotiations with the leaders of each tribe. Third, to refuse to negotiate with the Baloch fighters and to crush them through the army and the paramilitary forces. He is emulating the policy of divide and rule followed by the Zulfiquar Ali Bhutto government in the 1970s when it crushed the Baloch freedom struggle, which had erupted after the liberation of Bangladesh in 1971, by creating differences between the Bugti tribe on the one side and the Marris and the Mengals on the other. Bhutto then used the Bugti tribe to crush the Marris and the Mengals. Ruling a Tribal society has its advantages, you just have to hope that they keep fighting each other and not put aside their differences to fight the outsider. Now, the Baloch fighters, wise from the experience of their predecessors of the 1970s, remain determined that they will not allow Musharraf to succeed in his policy of divide and rule. They know that this is a "now or never" struggle for them and their success will depend on their remaining united. Musharraf has not only been trying to create differences among different tribes, but he has also been trying to drive a wedge between the Baloch Sunnis, who are in a majority, and the Shi'ites. "Remain united. Don't betray the Baloch cause." That is the call reverberating across the hills and valleys of Balochistan. Remaining united and resolute in the pursuit of their objective is the sine quo non of their new freedom struggle. But that alone may not be adequate. They need to strengthen their capability for waging a relentless struggle inside and outside their homeland. It's no suprise the Indians would be so sympathetic to the Baluchs. |
| Posted by:Paul Moloney |
| #7 ZF: precisely. ;-) |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2005-04-20 10:03:00 PM |
| #6 So whos on the side of the Baluchi rebellion now? It isn't clear at this stage just who is supporting them, if anyone, although all sort of countries have been blamed for it. |
| Posted by: Paul Moloney 2005-04-20 6:50:06 PM |
| #5 TW: People are more interested in being part of a well-administered empire, if they have a choice. I don't think Pakistan (or India or China) is anyone's idea of a well-administered empire. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2005-04-20 11:18:17 AM |
| #4 LH: So whos on the side of the Baluchi rebellion now? India, I suppose. Sounds like China isnt keen on it, nor the Islamists, nor the US (and presumably not Karzai either). Iran? Russia? Pakistan is China's ally in its rivalry with India. Anything that weakens Pakistan would be against Chinese interests. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2005-04-20 11:16:46 AM |
| #3 IIUC in 1970 the Baluchi rising was supported by USSR, and soviet leaning Afghanistan, and i think India - opposed by Pakistan with support from the US and China (and Iran?) Soviet drive to a warm water port, and all that. great game sort of thing. So whos on the side of the Baluchi rebellion now? India, I suppose. Sounds like China isnt keen on it, nor the Islamists, nor the US (and presumably not Karzai either). Iran? Russia? |
| Posted by: Liberalhawk 2005-04-20 10:17:02 AM |
| #2 People are more interested in being part of a well-administered empire, if they have a choice. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2005-04-20 10:09:59 AM |
| #1 Pakistan is really an empire of almost 200m people incorporating various nationalities (that speak distinct languages) in South Asia who happen to be Muslim. I can see why some of those people might not be too thrilled about being part of the empire. (India's kind of the same way, except they're all Hindus). |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2005-04-20 9:38:48 AM |