The Baluchistan Issue

Amit (#21):

From the face of it, one can say that Pakistan would loose the leverage of dangling carrot of Peace dividend to settle Kashmir. Pipeline through Pakistan, as it currently stands, is a pipe dream. More common economic interests, and congruence on geo-politcs of the region are necessary even more important next phase to the follow up of cultural and people to people exchange. Unless economic trade is much larger than the revenues to Pakistan from the pipeline, India is not going to have its economy so dependent on oil and gas pipeline through Pakistan. This is a simple economic reality on the pipeline, besides the security aspect that you have eluded.

Sadly, my generation of Indians did not include Indian Muslims well enough to groom them into a force to counter Pakistani Muslims in that part of the world. It is refreshing to see the younger generation of Indians is more assimilated. Possibly in another 10-15 years, when this generation is decision maker, there would be a chance for India to play a role through democratized and secular Indian muslims. Something, the west would prefer over extremism in a large segment of Pakistani muslims. Believe it or not, even moderate leadership in BJP discovered Indian muslims too, a little too late to benefit from their votes. Its recent debacle in U.P. is a lesson, and so is Bihar that Indian muslims cannot be ignored. Two places where muslim votes mean a lot to elect a state leader and prime minister of India. When India, through its democratized Indian muslims can provide an alternative for the west to choose, the west will prefer India for the democratization process, while it may conitnue to use Pakistani Generals to deal with Islamic extremist. You may recall, India had categorically turned down the request to send troops to Iraq, whereas Pakitanin Generals were willing to consider. Thus there may be a conruence among geo-political interests as well between India and Pakistan.

Recent news that Iraqi government wants to ease visa restrictions on Indian businessman is a signal how the world is willing to see India in that part of the world. If the U.S. and the west secure Baluchistan to bring gas and oil from Central Asia, Indian economy will benefit too.

From the days of Jaswant Singh, Indian foreign policy is rightly driven by economic interests. Although, if Pakistani army gets embroiled in Baluchistan, in Waziristan, in tactical support in Afganistan, and in ``their moral`` support in Kashmir, then its bandwidth will go down. No matter how much money the U.S. puts in the hands of Paksitani Generals, Pakistan`s efforts to build its economy will be seriously impacted, due to lack of separation of economy and politics from its military. This will be good for India in the short term, but bad in the long term, as its economic growth rates picks up and its focus shifts away from Pakistan to the world, it will benefit from a vibrant Pakistan more than from the stretched out Pakistani Generals and its army.

Anil Kapuria

HisExcellency #29

`` 1. Bengalis were protesting for military cantontments. They feared that West Pakistan had left them defenseless against India. They wanted greater representation in military and more cantontments in East Pakistan.

In contrast, Baluchis want fewer military cantontments. The Pakistan govt cannot be faulted for ignoring the security of Baluchistan, especially since Pakistan`s largest military cantontment is in Quetta.

This is a substantial difference between the demands and complaints of Bengalis vis-a-vis Baluchis. The Bengali demand for greater security enjoyed moral legitimacy; the Baluchi demand for less security does not.``

Can any Pakistani army defend East Pakistan from Indian military given the industrial base of East Pakistan and the only port of Chittagong ?

`` 2. Bengalis complaints were articulated by an elected political party that represented the lower and middle classes. They could legitimately claim to be true representatives of Bengali people. Baluchis nationalists in contrast are feudals and modern-day slave owners. They run private jails, abuse the rights of their peoples and want to preserve the ``old power structure`` under the pretext of Baluchi culture. These Baluchi sardars are lousy spokesmen for the Baluchi cause ``

Is there any Baluchi middle class ?

`` 3. Bengalis claimed that West Pakistan was neglecting the economy of East Pakistan. This is hardly the case in Baluchistan today. Pakistan govt is investing billions of ruppees in the development of Baluchistan. Moreover, the Baluchistan provincial govt can also seek foreign investment on its own. Economic grievances of the past (e.g. Sui) are insufficient to spark a mass agitation, especially when the masses can see new development projects that are meant to redress those grievances.``

Are the development projects for the benefits of the Baluchis ? Or for the benefit of the army ?

amit #21:``This Baluchistan issue affects Indo-Pak relations in an indirect way because it raises red flags about the Iran-Pakistan-India gas pipeline that is one of the key items on the negotiation table.``

I don`t know the details of the pipeline. From what I have read, India has refused it, and has prefered the costlier option of getting the gas through some other means. And Pakistan is going ahead with it, for its own usage now.

These pipelines etc. have nothing to do with peace, one way or the other. Nor should they. They should purely be business deals. If India doesn`t want the pipeline. Fine. Its its own choice, since it is spending its own money.

As for securing pipelines. I think the pipelines in Pakistan are generally secure. One odd explosion here or there, does not mark insecurity. Having said that, Baluchistan is an interesting phenomenon. I tend to agree with HP`s analyses (mostly) on issues related to Sind and Baluchistan. He seems to be familiar with the internals of the area. One hears a lot of jingoism about such things (including the military). However, those who have seen these things from the inside, can generally analyse them better.

I think Baluchis will eventually lose their identity. They are too tiny a minority in Pakistan, and far too spread out. Yet their tribal leaders control a bonanza of Pakistan natural resources. These tribal leaders are being squeezed from three sides. As their areas develop, their population will demand their personal rights, and will get rid of the tribals. The mauvlis have started defeating the tribal leaders (who are secular) in elections. The maulvis represent the lower class. And Baluchistan is too integrated with the rest of the country, economically, to be interested in any kind of separatism.....

I think if the Baluchis want to separate, they should be allowed to. But they don`t want that. Massive amounts of money should be spent in Baluchistan, along with affirmitive action to develop it, however, this should go to the common man and not through the sardars. This is kind of being done now. And everything should be done to get rid of the sardars and reduce them to common folk (as HP has suggested). This is the tricky part........

Romair #9

*****
The problem with Baluchistan is that one rarely gets to hear any Baluchi voices, other than the Sardars. And they obviously have their own vested interests. There are only four or five of them. The more Baluchistan gets developed, the more power they lose.
*****

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_15-1-2005_pg3_2

The Daily Times, Lahore, Pakistan
Saturday, January 15, 2005

Growth and poverty in Pakistan
By Abbas Rashid

..... The history of land reforms in Pakistan has been a dismal one with very little land actually getting redistributed in the course of the two land reforms under Ayub and Bhutto. But, the process was completely blocked after the takeover by Zia regime and in 1980 the Federal Shariat Court declared mandatory acquisition of private land by the state as being against the injunctions of Islamic law. The Supreme Court confirmed the judgment in 1989. Lest anyone continue to harbour such ideas in these times, the report reminds us that Prime Minister Zafarullah Jamali declared in 2003: “my government has decided that there will be no more land reforms so that farmers could bring the maximum area under cultivation without fear”. .....

---

www.jang.com.pk/thenews

The News, Karachi, Pakistan
Wednesday December 11, 2002-- Shawwal 06, 1423 A.H.

Why Jinnah`s Pakistan ended
by M B Naqvi
mbna...@cyber.net.pk

..... One emphasises a narrower reason for the earliest power struggle between the Punjab and Bengal Groups in the first Constituent Assembly in 1948-49. East Bengalis had opened their account with the expropriation of all intermediary landed interests between the state and the cultivator. This without compensation reform frightened the social elites in West Pakistan, almost all of whom landlords. Bengalis acquiring the central power seemed to them like encouraging the new Bolsheviks to repeat that enormity here also. So they were determined to deny the Bengalis their due share of power and entered into an open conspiracy: they sought help from the bureaucracy and got it. With West Pakistan`s landowning MPs help, they cornered all power.....

---

http://www.dawn.com/2003/03/20/op.htm#2

DAWN, Karachi, Pakistan
20 March 2003 Thursday 16 Muharram 1424

No land reforms any more!
By Sultan Ahmed

Ex-Prime minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto did not say so that openly, while sustaining feudalism in reality but Mir Zafarullah Jamali has said categorically there will be no land reforms under his government.
Simultaneously he has said, rather inexplicably the days of big landholdings are over. And he has asked the landowners to extend their cultivation without fear or hesitation which could mean larger farms than they have now.

What that means is that feudalism is safe and sound in Pakistan, while it has vanished from the rest of South Asia, including India, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka. And that is almost inevitable when a landholder like Mir Zafarullah Jamali is the prime minister, Ali Mohammad Maher is chief minister of Sindh, Jam Yousuf is C.M. of Balochistan and Chaudhri Pervaiz Elahi is the C.M. of Punjab.

Feudal lords are packing the parliament and provincial assemblies. And if the pre-condition of being a graduate kept some of the feudal lords from the assemblies, their sons, nephews and brothers have taken their seats and their nieces and daughters have added to the number to the greater glory of their families. .....

---

http://www.dawn.com/2003/04/17/op.htm#3

DAWN, Karachi, Pakistan
17 April 2003 Thursday 14 Safar 1424

Do we need more land reforms?
By Mahmood Hasan Khan

..... jagirdari and jagirdars are not emotive metaphors but an important part of the social and economic reality in Pakistan. Land is an important asset in the economy for income and power.

One of the major causes of rural poverty is landlessness and near-landlessness. This applies particularly to those rural households in which the workers have no skills or education and the industrial-urban nexus is weak. Landlessness results largely from the process of depeasantization or agricultural progress embedded in the capitalist mode: fewer people are needed on the land and fewer (small) landowners can survive, thanks to the changes in markets, technology, population, and public policy. Progress and poverty can thus coexist for a long time in the transition if nothing else is done.

Returning to the issue of landownership and control in Pakistan, one can safely say that landownership matters to both income and power: the more (good quality) land one has the more income and power one can enjoy at the community and state level. Landownership confers certain rights to other assets that the landless cannot claim. Nor is it all.

If a lot of land is owned and controlled by a small proportion of the community, it allows the landowners to subjugate the landless through patronage and force with or without the help of state machinery. It can help maintain the patron-client relationship and deny a large section of the community its fundamental right to human dignity and freedom. .....

..... Recent changes in the agrarian structure of Pakistan have been dominated by the rapid landlessness of small landowners and sharecropping tenants. Their alienation from land and conversion into wage-labour is a major source of rural poverty and rapid migration to towns and cities. They cannot survive without human capital or skills simply on uncertain employment in rural areas in particular.

Corporatization of farming without institutional reforms in the agrarian system is likely to exacerbate the problems of landlessness and unemployment, creating wealth for some and poverty for many others. .....

..... There is evidence that the concentration of land and rural income has not fallen and rural poverty has increased, particularly in the last decade. Also, there is evidence that agricultural production in Pakistan has been rising as a result of the increased level of inputs and not increased productivity of resources.

If one explores the reasons for these observations, one finds that land concentration, unprotected sharecropping tenancy, landlessness, bad water management, deterioration in the quality of agricultural land, and the poor quality of social and physical infrastructure are the major elements. .....

---

A list of stark differences between East Pakistan and Baluchistan:

1. Bengalis were protesting for military cantontments. They feared that West Pakistan had left them defenseless against India. They wanted greater representation in military and more cantontments in East Pakistan.
   
   In contrast, Baluchis want fewer military cantontments. The Pakistan govt cannot be faulted for ignoring the security of Baluchistan, especially since Pakistan`s largest military cantontment is in Quetta.
   
   This is a substantial difference between the demands and complaints of Bengalis vis-a-vis Baluchis. The Bengali demand for greater security enjoyed moral legitimacy; the Baluchi demand for less security does not.



2. Bengalis complaints were articulated by an elected political party that represented the lower and middle classes. They could legitimately claim to be true representatives of Bengali people. Baluchis nationalists in contrast are feudals and modern-day slave owners. They run private jails, abuse the rights of their peoples and want to preserve the ``old power structure`` under the pretext of Baluchi culture. These Baluchi sardars are lousy spokesmen for the Baluchi cause



3. Bengalis claimed that West Pakistan was neglecting the economy of East Pakistan. This is hardly the case in Baluchistan today. Pakistan govt is investing billions of ruppees in the development of Baluchistan. Moreover, the Baluchistan provincial govt can also seek foreign investment on its own. Economic grievances of the past (e.g. Sui) are insufficient to spark a mass agitation, especially when the masses can see new development projects that are meant to redress those grievances.

As Baloch myself, I do think some foreign elements are indeed active inside and outside Balochistan at a same time these people are somehow trying to exploit the situation in Balochistan . These elements are based in Middle East and are operating from Thailand as well . There`s another problem which is the root cause of all problems in Baluchistan and that is rule of Punjabis everywhere . Even in Balochistan Police only 25% of Police Force is actually Baloch rest are Punjabis and Phatans .
The suffering of Balochs in Balochistan has multiplied manyfold because of their artificial separation from Balochs of Sindh. In early days of BSO there was lot of cooperation between Sindhi and Baloch nationalist student parties and almost all the colleges in Sindh had branches of BSO. But later on due to clever political acts, the seats of Baloch students from Balochistan in Sindh colleges were terminated and thus the contacts between Balochs were disrupted. Sardar Attaullah Mengal, Late Ghous Baksh Bizenjo and Mumtaz Ali Bhutto were the prime mover of the idea of Sindh Balochistan front.

Humsab #19

`` How come Romair ji has not talked about HUMAN RIGHTS while typing his treatise on Baluchistan! May be pakistani Army is using Helicopter gunships and heavy mortar etc in that area to protect Human rights of Baluchis ! ``

in case you didn`t know human rights apply only to certain groups

amit #21

Pakistan is already pressing on with the Iran-Pakistan gas pipeline which is going to pass through Baluchistan. The project management aspects were formalized last week in Tehran. Construction, procurement and delivery phases shall probably commence during Spring this year. This clearly indicates that security situation in Baluchistan is not as precipitous as the media paints it.

http://www.nation.com.pk/daily/jan-2005/19/columns1.php

The Nation, Pakistan
Wednesday, January 19, 2005

Toward confrontation
By Roedad Khan

In a television interview on January 4, General Musharraf issued a stern warning to the Baloch nationalists. ``Don`t push us. It is not the 70s, when you can hit and run, and hide in the mountains``, he said, alluding to the military operation to quell the insurgency in Balochistan in the 1970s. ``This time, you won`t even know what hit you``. ``Oh God``! I said to myself. ``Not again``. Unfortunately, Generals do not learn from history because they do not read history. They make history. The current crisis in Balochistan is a throwback to the 1970s insurgency that resulted from Z.A Bhutto`s dismissal of the National Awami Party government and the detention, on conspiracy charges, of 55 nationalist politicians and student leaders. Nearly three divisions were deployed to crush the insurgency and restore normalcy in that troubled province. .....

.....Whoever is advising President Musharraf to take on the Baloch, is no friend of his and is certainly no friend of Pakistan. Instead of extricating the army from Waziristan where the so-called American-led war against terrorists has resulted in the killing of innocent men women and children and the permanent alienation of Wazir and Mahsud tribesmen, Musharraf is now jumping into the Baloch quicksand and is about to open a second front against his own people.

The trouble with Musharraf is that he listens too much to generals and flatterers around him. He doesn`t realise that he is flying against history and the wind of public opinion. What he needs more than anything else is civilian input – people who would tell him not what he wants to hear, but what he ought to hear. Musharraf may be a good soldier but he possesses nothing of the vision required of a statesman. Essentially a risk-taker, Musharraf is emerging as one of the most audacious President in Pakistan. Whether he is also wise is a question that will preoccupy us for quite some time.

How will this crisis end? No one knows. But never, never, believe that confrontation in Balochistan will be smooth and easy. No one can measure the tides or hurricanes General Musharraf is sure to encounter if he embarks on this perilous adventure. The use of force against the people did not succeed in East Pakistan and led to tragic consequences. How can it succeed in Balochistan? Why use force to resolve what is essentially a political problem? Why rock the boat? But those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

There is an old Russian saying: ``once you let your feet get caught in a quagmire your whole body will be sucked in``. That is what happened to us in East Pakistan. Why repeat the same mistakes in Balochistan? Einstein once said, ``To keep trying the same thing over and over with the expectation of a different result is the definition of insanity``. Is there no one to keep this insanity at bay? It is looking more and more like amateur hour in the one place that is supposed to provide leadership in these perilous times – the Presidency.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/GA15Df06.html

Asia Times
Jan 15, 2005

The hour of reckoning

..... Musharraf is not wrong when he warns the Baloch nationalists ``it is not the 1970s``. In the 1970s, the Pakistani political leadership, as well as the military, were yet to recover from the traumatic loss of East Pakistan, as Bangladesh was known before 1971. The army was still in a state of demoralization, with senior officers blaming each other for the humiliating debacle in East Pakistan. The US was yet to replenish all the equipment lost by the Pakistani armed forces in East Pakistan. Pakistan was not a military nuclear power. There was no terrorist or insurgent movement in Indian Punjab and Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) to keep the Indian security forces preoccupied.

Indira Gandhi, whom the Pakistani military-intelligence establishment respected, feared and hated, was still at the height of her power in India. The then Afghan government in Kabul was a close ally of India. Consequently, worries over the possibility of the Indian and Afghan armies helping the Baloch nationalists, either overtly or covertly, was a factor influencing Pakistan`s policy.

Despite all these inhibiting factors, the Pakistani army and air force, on the orders of Bhutto, intervened and ruthlessly put down the nationalist movement, though they took many months before they could root it out. The Shah of Iran was at the height of his power and influence in Tehran and he was determined to see that the BPLO did not succeed lest it have an adverse impact on Iran`s control over its Balochs. He had reportedly assured Bhutto that if India intervened to help the Balochs, his army would enter Balochistan to help the Pakistan army crush the Balochs. This imparted some confidence to the Pakistani leadership.

Today, Pakistan is a nuclear power. Jihadi terrorist organizations from Pakistan continue to keep the Indian security forces bleeding in J&K. India has had a succession of prime ministers who have no stomach for using the stick against Pakistan. Afghanistan is ruled by a government that is strongly under the control of the United States and hence unlikely to meddle in Pakistan`s internal affairs. Pakistan`s economy is improving steadily. Musharraf is the blue-eyed boy of the US and other Western governments. US economic and military assistance has been resumed to Pakistan on a generous scale.

The army has been in receipt of considerable US military supplies, such as helicopter gunships, surveillance equipment, arms and ammunition, etc meant for use against al-Qaeda and the International Islamic Front (IIF) of Osama bin Laden in Pakistan`s border areas. Musharraf could easily divert them for use against the Baloch nationalists, and the US is unlikely to raise any objection. .....

..... Any military operation in Balochistan against the nationalist elements has to be fast and surgical if it is to be effective. Otherwise, a prolonged conflict would make the situation intractable. In 1971, General Yahya Khan and his senior generals convinced themselves, just as Musharraf seems to have convinced himself now, that the army will have a walkover in the then East Pakistan. The result: an independent Bangladesh.

Any hasty and over-confident action by Musharraf could create a similar situation in Balochistan. Musharraf may end up being another General Yahya Khan, the army chief in 1971, or another Lieutenant-General Tikka Khan, who came to be abused as the butcher of the Bangladeshis.

Romair # 9

*****
The problem with Baluchistan is that one rarely gets to hear any Baluchi voices, other than the Sardars. And they obviously have their own vested interests. There are only four or five of them. The more Baluchistan gets developed, the more power they lose.
*****

[Mahbub ul Haq was worried not about the twenty-two families being wealthy, but the fact that they were starting to dictate the country’s economic policies. According to him, the main problem (at the time) was that Pakistan’s capitalist system was one of the most primitive in the world, with economic feudalism prevailing, where a handful of people made all the basic decisions]

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_19-1-2005_pg3_5

The Daily Times, Lahore, Pakistan
Wednesday, January 19, 2005

ECONOMY: On courage and wisdom
By Miguel Loureiro

..... what was really happening in the country in the high-growth ‘60s? It was towards the end that Mahbub ul Haq made his famous speech on the twenty-two wealthy families in Pakistan. His take was that there were about twenty-two families in Pakistan that dominated the economic and financial life of the country, controlling two thirds of industrial assets, 80 percent of banking and 79 percent of insurance. And there wasn’t any real distribution of this growth through all the citizens. The real disparity in the per capita incomes of East and West Pakistan had more than doubled during the ‘60s, and real wages of the industrial workers, concentrated in a few key urban areas, had been reduced by a combination of inflation and weak bargaining power of the unions. Generally speaking, personal income inequalities had increased substantially, which meant that the majority of Pakistanis had remained unaffected by the forces of economic change (since economic development had favoured only a privileged minority).

Today, similar symptoms are starting to appear (disparity of per capita incomes between urban Punjab and the rest of the country, real wages going down, inflation going up, unions’ bargaining power almost nonexistent) ...

Now what Haq was worried about (regarding these twenty-two families) was not the fact that they were wealthy, but that they were starting to dictate the country’s economic policies. According to him, the main problem (at the time) was that Pakistan’s capitalist system was one of the most primitive in the world, with economic feudalism prevailing, where a handful of people, whether landlords or industrialists or bureaucrats, made all the basic decisions and the system often worked simply because there was an alliance between various vested interests.

And today?

Pakistan’s policy-makers chose to learn nothing from the lessons learnt by the country’s most celebrated economist to date. Development thought around the world has changed (for better) because of his writings, but his own country hasn’t.

Re:Romair#9

This Baluchistan issue affects Indo-Pak relations in an indirect way because it raises red flags about the Iran-Pakistan-India gas pipeline that is one of the key items on the negotiation table. Presumably the gas pipeline has to pass through Baluchistan. If Pakistan cannot secure its own gas supply within its own borders, how can it guarantee safety to an international pipeline through the same territory, that too going to India? Hence it makes the pipeline much less feasible, which reduces the peace dividend that Pakistan can offer to India for compromising on Kashmir.

HP #15

it is irrelevant whether people are hypocrites.

How come Romair ji has not talked about HUMAN RIGHTS while typing his treatise on Baluchistan! May be pakistani Army is using Helicopter gunships and heavy mortar etc in that area to protect Human rights of Baluchis !

Well well till now Indian Army had never done that in Kashmir and thats why Romair ji is always complaining.

Regards all.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts