HAMID ALVI
It has become a common practice with the political dissidents of post 1971 brand to raise the bogey of ’cessation’ a la East Pakistan whenever the security forces get involved in correcting a situation of lawlessness and subversion. The tactics of such dissidents often have two objectives, one, to scare the patriotic citizens who do not want a repeat of East Pakistan and would rather yield to the unfair demands of transgressing elements than to have another dismemberment on their hands. Second objective of the dissidents in conflict situation appears to be to create, if possible, East Pakistan like condition through suggestion and propaganda and thus destabilise the political atmosphere even if it falls short of their real intention.
It is intriguing to notice that a section of such dissidents is transparently pro-Indian and is never heard holding Indian military intervention as partly, if not wholly, responsible for the break-up of Islamic Republic.
Currently the whip made available to the dissidents to beat Pakistan with is the unfortunate conflict in Balochistan between a tribal chieftain of dubious reputation and the country’s security forces. People generally do not know the exact cause of conflict except that the chieftain opposes the modernisation of Balochistan and is critical of the steps taken in that direction, including the building of a highly profitable deep seaport. Rumors had it that the chief Akbar Bugti also wants a substantial raise in the gas royalty over and above the Rs 370 million he already draws every year.
As the conflict escalates between the legal authority and the illegal band of Bugti tribesmen, a crescendo of voices has been built up which tend to scare the citizens that an East Pakistan like situation is developing in Balochistan the consequences of which may be no different from what happened in the East.
The latest to join the crescendo is a small group of intellectuals from Islamabad which is led by a heavy weight poet, two likeable short story writers, and one educationist and former vice-chancellor of Quaid-e-Azam University. In a joint statement issued January 16 at a press conference in Islamabad the four men of intellect lent support to tribalism as typified by Akbar Bugti, called for a halt to "military operation", and warned people that crisis like 1971 was fast developing in Balochistan. The four also appealed to other writers, intellectuals and artists to raise their voice against the official policies in Balochistan. The entry of intellectuals into a political controversy is a welcome sign but one expects them to enter the arena with diction different from the yell of a half-baked politician.
This is an unjustifiable comparison because the military intervention then was directed against a highly representative body, Awami League, while the action of paramilitary forces in Balochistan is aimed to fix a fief holder who is challenging writ of the state and enjoys no representative character. Another difference between the past and present situation is that Awami League, a party with clear parliamentary majority was deprived of power through a military-civilian conspiracy, driving East Pakistanis to revolt, whereas representatives of Balochistan are running government in their province and are sitting in the Senate and National Assembly.
Still another difference is that the issues in case of East Pakistan were very clear whereas in case of Balochistan hardly anybody knows what the issues are. The statements of Balochistan representatives in the parliament have - remained confined to generalities and unsubstantiated allegations against the federal governments of past and present. Senator Sanaullah Baloch has made angry speeches on private TV channels but has left the audience as ignorant about the issues as they were before the Senator let loose his missiles in all directions. As regards Pushtoons of the province, who constitute about half of Balochistan population, there is almost total silence. No issues are identified and no solutions are proposed.
Political differences do occur between governments and opposition in all countries but the general practice is to identify the issues, sit down across the table and sort out solutions. Thus far Akbar Bugti and Khair Bakhash Marri have not told the nation what exactly their grievances are. All we know is Bugti and his sympathisers’ complaints against the action of security forces. Also there is disturbing silence about the subversive activities in the province where the culprits are often found having links with Bugti and some other tribes.
While the dissidents have failed to outline the issues, the President General Musharraf has gone public with his side of the story. In an address to the nation on January 17, Musharraf claimed that some Sardars were against development and modernisation; their objective was to perpetuate serfdom; and that in their efforts to block developments they were aided through cash and weapons by a foreign country. Earlier the Musharraf government had named India as the foreign country.
Musharraf also told the nation that all residents of Balochistan are not involved in the conflict, only small tribal groups whose number according to press reports does not exceed thousands. And this is the major difference between the situation in Balochistan and the tragic happenings in East. Unlike East Pakistan there is no all Baloch issue, no mass of hundred million plus people living in a state of alienation with well known grievances. Further, in East Pakistan the imprudent military action was designed to destroy democracy, while in Balochistan the security forces are acting to weaken the hold of warlords who are enemies of democracy. Let us stop comparing the two situations.
http://www.nation.com.pk/daily/jan-2006/24/columns4.php |
