Opposing Baloch Sovereignty Was a Historical Blunder of India, Afghanistan and British By: Hafeez Hassanabadi
Opposing
Baloch Sovereignty Was a Historical Blunder of India, Afghanistan and British
Hafeez Hassanabadi
Translated by Archen Baloch
Whenever the bouts of pains of infested wounds
forced Baloch to raise their voice, Pakistan resorted Blame Game calling them agents of external
powers thereby downplaying the importance of the struggle. India and
Afghanistan are its permanent targets of the blame game, besides America Russia
and Israel for destabilising Pakistan by inciting insurgency in Balochistan.
The reality,
however, is that Baloch freedom movement started in 1839 when the British
attacked and subsequently divided the sovereign state of Balochistan into three
Parts. The Baloch liberation struggle never ceased since then also it is
important to remember that there was no sign of Pakistan on the world map at
that time. In response to the Pakistani
allegations, both India and Afghanistan resorted to a defensive position and
denied any involvement in Balochistan’s insurgency. In fact, both leadership of
India and Afghanistan should have realized their historical blunder and should
rectify it by openly supporting Baloch freedom struggle on the moral and
diplomatic ground because the British, India and Afghanistan are equally
responsible for the instability of this region.
Had they
made the correct decision and supported free Balochistan state during the
partition of the subcontinent and British departure from the region, Pakistan
would not have wreaked havoc in Afghanistan. The Bombay carnage would not have
taken place in India, nor would the genocide and rape of hundred thousands of
Bangali people have taken place in the region, neither would Pakistan be the
safe haven for international terrorist groups.
It is
necessary to bring forth the historical fact that Baloch have been striving to
reintegrate their divided historical geography to pre 1839 state, after the
British departure. Baloch geography was dissected against their will and it has
damaged Baloch national cohesion beyond repair. At that time, the conditions were
in favour of Baloch and Pakistan could not have occupied their country, had
Afghanistan, India and even the British been foresighted and supported Baloch.
The Indian
leadership based their decision for not supporting Baloch freedom on Moulana
Abul Kalam’s assertion that Baloch cannot sustain their freedom; they might
have to strike a defence deal with the British for their security which was
totally unacceptable to the Indian leaders to another imperial presence in the
region. The British also withdrew from the region silently forgetting that it
had a few defence pacts with the Baloch.
Though, the British was bound by the 1876 defence agreement’s article 3
which stipulated British to render defence support to Baloch sovereignty in
case of foreign aggression, but it failed to honour this agreement and played
the role of a silent spectator when Pakistan attacked and illegally occupied
Balochistan in 1948.
On the other
hand, the Afghans come to the aid of the Baloch at a time when Baloch needed
their support the most though Afghanistan had friendly relations with
Balochistan besides several old mutual treaties related to their security
issues. In the past, they had supported each other on several occasions. Prince
Agha Abdul Kareem, the younger brother of the Khan of Kalat, Mir Ahmed Yar
Khan, was the first Baloch leader who started resistance movement against
Balochistan’s illegal occupation by Pakistan. He asked Afghanistan for support
but the Afghan response was rather disappointing. In 1948, it was the same Afghanistan that
abandoned Baloch and favoured the new born Islamic country Pakistan, but today
the peace, prosperity and stability of Afghanistan is ruined by non-other than
Pakistan and its establishment. The same India, that pushed Baloch to become part
of Pakistan, is facing Pakistan’s 68 years nefarious designs, now forced to
spend billions of dollars in defence expenditure leaving its public in the
lurch of abject poverty.
In future,
until Pakistan is intact with the same disputed geography; India continues to
face the same extra defence expenditures and instability, created by Pakistan.
The same can be said about western countries’ headache in the region. Though,
the Western countries have pushed the wars far away across their borders by
social and economic development, yet whenever there occurs a terror event in
those peaceful countries, the traces can be related to Pakistan either directly
or indirectly.
Another
power that failed the Baloch was the Soviet Union because it did not develop a
correct policy – a pro free Balochistan policy – as a result, it faced a
fateful defeat in Afghanistan. Instead of devising a pro-Baloch strategy based
on ground realities related to Baloch freedom movement, Soviet adopted a policy
that propagated Pakistan Communist Party’s policies and other so called leftist
intellectuals’ elucidations that sought to build a theoretical state,
(socialist Pakistan) by the amalgamation of Baloch and other nationalities.
Pakistan
could not become a communist country; instead, it helped all elements that
forced Soviet to withdraw its forces from Afghanistan. The Soviet Union despite
making a forceful entry and spending a staggering amount of sources returned
home empty handed and met an exemplary defeat that resulted in its own collapse.
Its collapse left a vacuum of balance of power in the world.
It is
pertinent here to say that had the Soviet and Afghan leadership regarded Baloch
as an ally in 80s second revulsion of the region’s geopolitics and helped them
regain their lost sovereignty instead of regarding them as a mercenary force,
they could have become a strong peace partner in the region rather than a
silent spectator. There was no doubt
that Baloch fight was to regain their lost sovereignty, but it would greatly
benefit Afghanistan and its allies.
Conclusion:
The latest two statements of prominent Baloch national leader, Hyrbyair Marri,
are worth considering objectively in Baloch perspective in the light of current
geopolitics of the region. In his first statement, he reminded British of its
obligations to 1876 treaty which bounds it to protect Baloch sovereignty. In the second statement he asked India to
adopt an outright clear cut policy regarding Balochistan crisis exactly the
same way as Pakistan does about Kashmir. Baloch leader issued these policy
statements at a time when world peace is facing gravest danger and it has
created a great opportunity for the world powers to correct their past
mistakes. Despite being volatile, the situation is still under control in the
region.
Despite its
barbarism and indiscriminate atrocities Pakistan could not succeed in creating
a Kobani like the situation in Mountainous Marri area, Dera Bugti and Awaran
areas. But if the world continues to be the silent spectator, there is no doubt
that there comes a day when the Pakistani forces in the name of ISIS (Daaesh)
or by other names would carry out the damned carnage of other sects in the
richest land of this region. Then the world might adopt the same policy in
support of Baloch as they have for Kurdistan today but at the time the Baloch
may not able to protect themselves or to contribute to the world peace.
Because, despite playing the key role against terrorism, Baloch are stranded in
isolation and facing barbarity of an atomic bomb wielding military power on
their ancestral country. The regional and world powers should help the Baloch
before it is too late and the human tragedy in Balochistan turns into a human
catastrophe.
Comments
Post a Comment