Dr. Abdul-Wajid
The provincial conflict in Balochistan has escalated from attacks on pipelines disrupting gas supplies, to a rocket attack on Kohlu during a visit there by President General Pervez Musharraf on December 14, 2005. Then, on December 29, 2005, the president backed claims by the Chief Minister of Balochistan that India is financing and supplying weapons to the Baloch rebels. On January 4, 2006, the 94th Corps Commanders Conference endorsed the use of force to establish the government’s writ in Balochistan. Now, the government and the opposition are locked in the traditional debate about whether military or civilian government is better. However, this debate does not go far enough as what is common to both military and civilian rule, is a failed system. Pakistan’s current system both fails to earn the loyalty of its citizens, as it neglects the affairs of its citizens, and fails to win their hearts, as it is alien to their beliefs and values. Divisions will continue to plague Pakistan and people will continue to turn on each other, unless the system is addressed radically.
The government’s position is partly plausible, but as a whole short-sighted. Certainly, India would benefit from exploiting divisions within Pakistan to weaken it, particularly at a time when India is seeking the American assurance to push Pakistan to the side, so that India can have shared authority over Azad Kashmir, as part of the United States of Kashmir formula. How has the current system failed so miserably that any citizen lowers himself to turning to foreign hands, hands that have oppressed the people of Kashmir so ruthlessly for over six decades? Furthermore, a foreign hand does not explain the widespread resentment that extends to the ordinary law-abiding citizens of Balochistan. Nor does it explain discontent in other provinces over current issues such as dam construction and Bush’s war on terror, or longer term issues such as education and healthcare. Nor does it explain forms of division and rivalry other than provincialism, such as sectarianism.
As for the opposition, its call against military dictatorship does not go far enough to heal the divisions in Pakistan. Certainly, the head of state should not be a military man. Otherwise ruling will assume the character of warfare, i.e. threat, suppression and force, rather than that of politics, i.e. persuasion, discussion and inspiring leadership. Also, elected assemblies should not be watched over by military commanders in an all-powerful National Security Council. This compromises the electorate’s concerns for the sake of the military elite’s perceived national interest. However, such calls do not go far enough, because even under civilian rule the people continue to be neglected.
For nearly six decades, regardless of whether it is headed by a civilian or military officer, the system of Pakistan has failed Balochistan. If energy provision is taken as a measure of securing basic needs, it seems a legitimate Baloch complaint that Quetta was the last provincial capital to be connected to the national gas grid, even though Balochistan yields gas for the entire nation. If literacy is taken as a measure of education services, there is little change in the low literacy rates in Balochistan from 1972 to 2002, according to Islamabad’s own Population Census Reports. If deaths during childhood are taken as an indication of healthcare, again there has been little change in decades. The ground is fertile for the Baloch people to be won over, rather than beaten into submission. Instead of dealing with them as an inseparable part of the Pakistani polity, they are dealt with as a faction apart from the rest. Is it surprising then that the tribal leaders of Balochistan have not been won over by Pakistan’s system and their people remain loyal to them more than to the government?
Beyond Balochistan, division is rife throughout Pakistan. This is further evidence that it is the system that is at fault, rather than a particular people. Even in Punjab, supposedly the best looked-after province, there is gross neglect of the people’s affairs. Beyond statistics, a short walk through Lahore’s Old City provides ample proof. This is why there is no mass revolt anywhere when civilian governments end before their tenures or army governments step down. It is clear after about a year in office that the government was seeking its own vested interests over the needs of the people.
The loyalty of people is earned through looking after their affairs and inspired through connecting with their most basic emotions. After all, the US’s well-resourced military machine has been unable to settle itself in either Iraq or Afghanistan, even after several years of seeking consent through the barrel of a gun. The US has failed because the system it has enforced in Iraq is colonialist by its nature, securing only the needs of the Americans and their proxy ruling elite and governing by values alien to the beliefs of the people. The American-groomed Ahmad Chalabi was given the highly lucrative position of oil minister to share in America’s spoils, whilst his people do not have their most basic needs satisfied. Is the American failure in Iraq not a lesson for Pakistan?
The basic character of Pakistan’s current ruling system was inherited from its immediate forerunner, the British Raj. During the time of colonialist rule, development was limited to securing the needs of the colonialists and the local elite they groomed as proxies for themselves. Also, the capitalist values that were imposed were alien to the values of the people. As such, the British system failed to end the desire within the subjected people to seek independence from the British system.
Today, the ruling system in Pakistan continues to secure the extravagant lifestyles of the ruling elite, whilst grossly neglecting even the most basic needs of the rest of society. From the time of the colonialist rule until today, facilities are not to be found where needed, i.e. where the bulk of the population is, but confined to the centres of capital and power. If this were not enough, the present system is essentially based on the ideology of capitalism. Living in deprived circumstances and deprived of a bond that will bind their hearts strongly, people become prone to factionalism, competition and rivalry in desperate attempts to fend for themselves.
There is hope. Pakistan can succeed in liberating itself from all forms of division, whether it is provincialism or sectarianism. Today, there is a lot of hope for betterment. We must now take the few remaining steps to govern our affairs by what is right, true and just to all of humankind.
The writer is a political commentator
http://www.thepost.com.pk/OpinionNews.aspx?dtlid=20591&catid=11 |
