BALOCH LEADERSHIP AT A STRATEGIC CROSS-ROAD

Belaar Baloch

The low-level insurgency in Balochistan is now moving towards full-fledged war with a well-equipped conventional army's force much larger than that of the Baloch guerrillas. History, however, shows that nationalism as a political ideology can be an effective tool against an occupying force, even a sizeable one, as experienced by foreign occupiers in Asia, Africa and Latin America following the Second World War. This is true, in part, because nationalists are resolute and often more willing than their opponents to risk death in the pursuit of self-determination.


Andrew Mack argues in his book 'Why Big Nations Lose Small Wars': "an actor's relative resolve interest explains success or failure in asymmetric conflicts. In essence, the actor with the most resolve wins, regardless of material power resources." According to this theory, power asymmetry explains interest asymmetry, the greater the gaps in relative power, the less resolute and hence more politically vulnerable strong actors are, and the more resolute and less politically vulnerable weak actors are. In this context, the outcome of war in Balochistan depends on our resolve. Here leadership will play a vital role in determining the future of the Baloch nation. Thus far, however, while the Baloch Liberation Army (BLA) has made a remarkable show of unity and successfully avoided political games and empty phrases, Baloch political leadership has been unable to forge a common front. A fragmented leadership is open to many kinds of exploitation and Islamabad's ruthless army will go to any length to undermine Baloch unity.


Politics rule in all aspects of war. In a Clausewitzian sense, the use of organised force for political purposes must have a political dimension, such as the trinity comprised of people, political leadership and an army (in our case, Baloch guerrilla forces). In this view, the burden of responsibility lies with political leadership whose responsibilities include: providing moral and material support to its forces, educating the public and fighting on the diplomatic front. These objectives can be achieved by forming a common front and devising a coherent strategy.


The assassination of Nawab Akbar Bugti in August 2006 was an attempt by the Punjabi army to send the message that negotiations over autonomy (which Nawab Bugti initially desired) were not an option. From the outset, Baloch leadership, particularly Nawab Bugti, believed a democratic approach might work and that desired political objectives could be achieved through a dialogue with the central government. The Dera Bugti Agreement in 2005 with the Punjabi establishment was the first step in direction, though the outcome of the "Deal" remains mysterious even now. It now seems, however, that this agreement, coupled with parliamentary initiatives for minimal provincial autonomy, were simply a deception on the part of the military establishment to buy more time to increase its military presence in the region and speed the construction of additional cantonments.



Although Nawab Bugti took command of local forces and embarked on a plan to target enemy forces, such drastic steps were probably defensive. By escalating the conflict, he may have actually intended to bring the government back to the negotiating table. From a military perspective, the motive behind such escalation is to compel the opponent to negotiate favourable terms. Later, however, Nawab Bugti surely grasped the military's ulterior design. And in his subsequent messages to the Baloch nation, he urged every individual to take up arms to defend every inch of the fatherland against naked Punjabi aggression.


The incident of 26th August 2005 not only shocked the entire Baloch nation, but also marked a clear departure from its previous policy of coexistence. From the beginning, the BLA has advocated a clear policy objective, i.e., restoration of full sovereign status to the Baloch nation. The BLA maintains that the only way to achieve this objective is through guerrilla warfare, not with a policy of appeasement.


Those so-called democrats in Balochistan who believe in a unified Pakistan and hope that with the return of democracy, the Baloch will benefit, are not only ignorant of Pakistan's past but unwittingly legitimising the occupation of Baloch lands. In fact, since the emergence of this artificial state, the Punjab majority and its military have made every effort to suppress the national identities of its small nations in the name of unity and the integrity of this so-called Islamic state. In fact, Pakistan, which has been ruled by tin-pot dictators for most of its history, has never enjoyed fully-realized democratic institutions, nor is it predicated to experience democratisation in the near future. In fact, historical experiences suggest that the process of democratisation in countries like Greece, Argentina and Brazil only began when their juntas realized they were unable to successfully wield power without legitimacy and were thus forced to surrender authority to the civilians.


In Pakistan, democratic rule is almost impossible for two reasons: First, Punjab province constitutes the largest province in terms of population and it has never embraced democratic values. Instead its population uses military power as an instrument to promote its interests at the expense of the smaller provinces. The people of Punjab have welcomed each military coup, portraying the military as the saviour of Pakistan. If the 'democrats' in Balochistan are still not convinced, they should examine public opinion in Punjab state. There a vast majority support the very military rule whose policies include genocide of the Baloch people, the plundering of Baloch resources, plans for new settlements in Balochistan, and the construction of Kalabagh Dam which will deprive rural Sindh of water, upon which rests its agro-based economy.


Second, the military has emerged as the largest corporate conglomerate in Pakistan 's economy. From breakfast cereal to the banking sector, military interests run through every aspect of Pakistani society. To defend this financial corruption, the military needs to be at the forefront of power, and a final decision maker. It will go to any length to defend its policies. The ultimate goal of the Punjabi elite is to use the power of the army to secure its interests. The goal is not only to deprive small nations of their rights, but to make their own people fear that any concession to the smaller provinces will lead to break-up of the state.


It is pointless to hope that in the near future, the military will recognise the rights of civilian rule. The only time the military has taken a backseat was when a catastrophe had occurred under its rule, for example, in the 1970s the humiliating defeat and loss of Bangladesh compelled it to transfer authority to a civilian administration, though for a very short period of time. Similarly, when the Afghan war ended in the late eighties, top generals became liabilities rather than assets for both for the West and for its own Army.


Such signs are again emerging:. Punjabi elites are now willing to back down over their disputed claims to Kashmir-the Kashmir policy that has been the cornerstone of Pakistan's foreign policy for decades. The official rationale behind such initiatives is to make peace with India and promote coexistence in the subcontinent. The underlying evidence, however, shows a different picture. In a situation where both resources and military are heavily overstretched on its eastern borders, Pakistan's dictator is making every effort to normalise relations with India in order to persuade the Indian government to reduce its troop levels. Facing tough resistance from Baloch forces, Islamabad is willing to sacrifice its Kashmir policy in a bid to save Balochistan.


Any moral support from India for the Baloch cause will increase Pakistan's perception of a threat to its eastern borders. As the world's largest democracy and an emerging global power, India carries moral weight and the Baloch would be the potential beneficiary of its moral support.


Those who claim that China is a progressive force in the region often shy away from the question: why does China overlook Baloch grievances? In fact, China's hunger for energy has become the driving force behind its exploitation of third world resources. The key purpose of its foreign expeditions is to ensure steady economic growth. To accomplish this, China aligns itself with dictatorial regimes: from Sudan to Burma , the Chinese are on a mission to exploit natural resources; in return they provide extensive support to some of the world's most ruthless dictators. Being the largest authoritarian state in the world, China has never regarded it necessary to consider human rights issues in developing countries, including Pakistan; what drives Chinese policy is crude national interest.


In pursuit of their short-term economic interests, the 'champions' of the Baloch middle class are undermining long-term Baloch national interests. At a time when the whole leadership of one party is behind bars and facing punitive actions, the opportunists are hoping to make gains at the expense of others. A dangerous silence on their part simply favours the Punjabi regime.


A critical moment in the history of Baloch people has arrived and it requires its political leadership to show character and courage.