Connect with us

South Asia

Balochistan: A Case of Forgotten Promises

Published

on

In Pakistan, political instability and socio-economic factors coupled with uneven resource distribution and weak governance have played their role to fester terrorism and crime in marginalized parts like FATA, Khyber Pakhtoonkhwa and Balochistan.

Though menace of Taliban insurgency has been at the top of internal threat matrix and gained premium attention in main stream media; the nationalist insurgency in Balochistan has long been concealed deliberately by the state from public exposure. The geostrategically located resource rich troubled province of Balochistan makes 44% of the Pakistan by landmass, bordering all the three provinces and sharing boundaries with Afghanistan and Iran. The ethnic Baloch population has long felt disenfranchised due to indifferent attitude of federal government as well as brutal british-era Sardari system leaving the region one of the most impoverished in the world. Since independence in 1947, some headstrong Baloch leaders were at odds with the state of Pakistan who viewed federation as a threat to their centuries old unique cultural identity, autonomy and free rule.

Historical studies reveal that in post-independence Pakistan, Qalat the then princely state ruled by Mir Ahmed Yar Khan initially insisted to remain independent but later it was annexed to Pakistan. In March 1948 The Khan of Qalat in an agreement ceded his territory to Pakistan which he later confessed to have done under duress. The move was so unpopular among local Balochis that Prince Karim Khan, the brother of Khan of Qalat not only repudiated the accession but also launched first insurgency in Balochistan against the state. The defiant prince initiated subversive activities through guerilla warfare while taking refuge in neighboring Afghanistan, forcing federal government to send in Pakistan Army as a mean to subjugate the warring tribes. Later on, the armed insurrection of Nawab Nowroz Khan against one unit policy in 1958 marked the second insurgency in the province. The third insurgency led by legendry Sher Muhammad Bijarani Marri’s against establishment of Pakistan Army garrisons and naval establishments in 1963-1969 was more ferocious in scale and magnitude. The Marxist Marri aligned resistance forces with Bugti and Mengal tribes after establishing Parari movement which later gave birth to Baloch Liberation Army (BLA) to carry out unconventional subversive activities against security forces. Later in 1973, the political crisis of Balochistan resulting in dissolution of provincial government of Sardar Attaullah Mengal and imprisonment of NAP leadership by egoistic Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto led towards much bigger insurgency which lasted for four years. Subsequently again army was called in to quell the rebellion in the mountains supported by thousands of guerilla fighters. However the military operation forced Baloch leaders to take refuge in Afghanistan. Meanwhile the government in Islamabad did not budge to overcome the deep sense of deprivation and alienation in Baloch population fuelled by decades of marginalization, denial of due share in resources, repressive policies and indifference to local cultural sensitivities. In addition, powerful Sardars who remained loyal to federation took millions in royalties but denied development and even basic amenities in their area of influence and in the end when central government would deny them increase in their shares they would blame Islamabad of all the ill poor were facing.

Such is the gory situation of the province that most of the less than 8 million of population has no access to clean drinking water, education and health facilities and the region remains one of the world most under developed. Then came the fifth phase of insurgency in early 2000s as incidents like Dr. Shazia rape case, establishment of military cantonments and continued feud over Sui gas royalty with central government infuriated belligerent Nawab Akbar Khan Bugti who eventually declared war on the state leading to his demise in a controversial military operation ordered by then military ruler General Musharraf. Bugti was widely respected for his nationalist ideas in Balochistan hence his killing proved to be final breaking point ruining any chance of reconciliation between the government and nationalists. Over the next decade militant groups mushroomed in rugged terrain of Kohlu, Dera Bugti, to Awaran, Panjgur and Gawadar engaging security forces in a low level but complex insurgency. Today, prominent among these separatist groups are Bloch Liberation Army of Hyrbyar Marri, Baloch Republican Army of Brahamdagh Bugti, Baloch Liberation Front of Dr. Allah Nazar and Lashkar-e-Balochistan of Javed Mengal fighting for varied objectives such as from provincial autonomy to absolute independence from Pakistan.

These outfits rely on terrorist activities such as ambushes, bomb blasts and IED attacks on gas piplines, power pylons, railway tracks, security and civilian infrastructure, assassination of prominent pro-state figures and Punjabi settlers. Since 2006, scores of civilians have been killed in this conflict but myriad of Balochistan problems still remain unresolved. Today dynamics of insurgency are not that simple as the arms raised against the state of Pakistan for greater autonomy, royalty of resources, share in province’s development and opposing demographic changes by constant non-baloch exodus in the province are now focusing on outright independence from Pakistan. In due course, Pakistani spy agencies blame that these centrifugal forces have aligned with India and other European and regional countries to harm Pakistani interests in its own backyard. Moreover, In last years a number of factors like paramilitary Frontier Corps vigilance, improved management at Pak-Afghan border, less venomous government in Kabul, departure of US and NATO forces and subsequent decline of Indian footprint in south east Afghanistan has improved over all security in the province. The insurgency has lost legitimacy and local support is fast waning for armed struggle and cessation from state.

It is high time for Islamabad government to shun decade old iron hand approach towards non-violent disgruntled Baloch leadership and build confidence among local by adopting serious measures to rectify the past. Military solution alone is no remedy for composite socio-economic problems that stem from decades of alienation, deprivation and miss-representation. Dialogue should be initiated with all dissident political forces who raise issues of provincial autonomy, share in development and resources, missing persons and electoral rigging which they allege is “Selection” rather than election. Provincial government should be allowed to freely implement mega projects like Reko Diq and operation of Gawadar port this will enhance Sense of ownership among people.

Although geo-strategic necessities and security linked apprehensions of federal government are genuine as the region is destined to become economic hub due to proposed $46 billion China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC). Hence role of security establishment to protect vital interests in the province against multifaceted internal and external threats cannot be denied. Likewise, the armed groups vying for independence and unwilling to join political process must be coerced militarily to break their strength and given incentives to reconcile as the provincial minister Changaiz Marri has successfully pursued influential commanders of BLA, BRA, United Baloch Army, Lashkar-e-Balochistan and Balochistan National Movement to surrender to the state for amnesty and financial support. The journey of peace and tranquility in Balochistan is long and tortuous but this is the time every one should adjust compass and move on.

Continue Reading
Comments

South Asia

Pakistan’s Increasing Tilt towards China

M Waqas Jan

Published

on

In a recent interview with the Washington Post; Prime Minister Imran Khan was asked what kind of relationship he wanted from the US. He responded by pointing out Pakistan’s long and storied relationship with China as an example of a successful and mutually beneficial relationship. He explained how Pakistan’s relationship with China, unlike the US was not one-dimensional and built more on trade, respect and mutual cooperation. In doing so he in effect presented the underlying reasons why China is often termed as Pakistan’s ‘All-Weather’ friend.

In fact, the very notion of China being an ‘All-Weather’ friend is borne in contrast out of the US’s more fair-weather and sporadic approach to Pakistan. This approach has been evident in Pakistan’s long-standing complaints of how after helping the US repel the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan, Pakistan was left to pick up the pieces as the US unilaterally withdrew from the region, leaving behind a devastating humanitarian and political crisis. The last two decades’ war on terror for which Pakistan once again allied with the US is also following a similar blue-print, which the Prime Minister made clear was an example of history repeating itself. In defining his country’s most recent reservations against the US, he made it clear that Pakistan would no longer serve as a hired gun for the US, and desired a more equitable relationship based on mutual respect.

Considering how Pak-US relations have deteriorated over the last few years, the Prime Minister’s remarks come as little surprise to observers who have witnessed this uneasy partnership throughout its peaks and troughs. Yet, what’s striking is the fact that this is perhaps the first time that a Pakistani head of state has directly presented its relations with China as the ideal blue-print for which to measure the long and troubled history of Pak-US relations.

In contrast, the official narrative ascribed to the Pak-China bilateral framework, has stood out amongst diplomatic and policy-making circles due to the broad poetic license that has more recently been attributed to it. The oft-quoted phrase of how Pak-China Friendship is ‘higher than mountains, deeper than the ocean, stronger than steel and sweeter than honey’, has been repeatedly used by officials representing the highest levels of government, from both countries to emphasize the far-reaching significance of their bilateral relations.

This includes their significance both within a more localized context, as well as a broader more regional context as evident in the $62 billion China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC). The corridor which promises an end to Pakistan’s development woes focuses instead on fostering peace and stability through economic growth and development. This is as opposed to the more security and strategically driven approach of the US, which has seen the region become increasingly violent and militarized. It is based on this difference that CPEC has been widely hailed as a viable solution to the relative instability and insecurity that has for years characterized the South Asian region.

However, over the past few months, Pak-China relations have themselves undergone an uncharacteristic period of friction and uncertainty. Interestingly, one of the major reasons behind this friction has been none other than the newly elected Prime Minister himself. As part of his anti-corruption campaign rhetoric leading up to the elections, he had promised greater over-sight and transparency with regard to Chinese investments under CPEC. This came at a time where growing trade and economic tensions between the US and China, had led to greater scrutiny and broad reservations against China’s rising influence the world over. Calls to re-evaluate China’s investments were echoed across countries such as Malaysia, Sri Lanka, Myanmar and Kenya; with allusions to unsustainable loans and China’s ‘Debt Trap Diplomacy’ doing the rounds amidst key influencers and policy-makers across the globe. Pakistan’s rising debt too was linked to CPEC projects by none other than the US secretary of State, who had ruled out the possibility of US loans being used to bail out Chinese bond-holders in Pakistan.

Prime Minister Imran Khan has since gone to great lengths to dispel such sentiments, as was evident in his official visit to Beijing last month. In all his statements, he has been careful in acknowledging the benefits of China’s strategic partnership with Pakistan, and has lauded China’s tremendous achievements in eradicating poverty; something that he wants to emulate as part of his own government’s policies. His recent statements in the above-mentioned interview too, are based in part on these same reasons.

Taken together, the PM’s statements thus present a clear and very public declaration that the Pakistani government is quite willingly choosing to side with China in the ongoing US-China economic rivalry. Unlike before where Pakistan had to carefully balance its strategic relationships between China and the US, China’s grand overtures and the US’s more inward focus on ‘America First’ have accelerated Pakistan’s gradual tilt towards China. With the US-China rivalry currently seeming far from any sort of resolution, Pakistan’s need to pick a side in favor of the other represents a clear indication of which side the government believes its long-terms interests lie with.

Continue Reading

South Asia

Sirimavo of Sri Lanka: Refocusing on World’s first Women Prime Minister

Published

on

Authors: Srimal Fernando and Pooja Singh*

In 1970s, there was a time when Sirimavo Bandaranaike caught the global attention and her premiership was one of the most momentous times in Sri Lanka’s political history. On 21 July, 1960, she became the first ever woman Prime Minister of Sri Lanka (formally known as Ceylon) and the world. Even today nearly half a century later, Sirimavo’s name is remembered among the thousands of Sri Lankans and among the Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP) supporters. Thus the Sri Lankan voters expectations about Sirimavo rose within no time after the unfortunate assassination of her husband S.W.R.D. Bandaranaike in 1959.

In the summer of 1970, the Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP) , the Lanka Sama Samaja Party (LSSP) and also the Communist Party (CP) was sweeping electorates in a general election by winning 115 seats out of 151. In essence, Sirimavo’s administration presented far-reaching constitutional and socio-economic reforms that were suitable for a small island nation.  In fact Mrs. Bandaranaike handled the transfer of island nation becoming a republic under a new constitution tactfully. In this context, Dr. N.M. Perera, Felix Dias Bandaranaike, Philip Gunawardena was some of the primary shapers of her administration. At that time, unlike her predecessors, the former premier showed great interest in developing cement, paper, steel and chemical industries. Despite promising signs under her leadership, uneven inequalities from 1948 to 1970 and economic stagnation created tensions within rural masses. Surprisingly, a coup in 1971 by the southern insurgents headed by Rohana Wijeweera, the leader of the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) shattered the hopes of Bandaranaike government for a short time. Although coup was unsuccessful because of Sri Lanka’s military support to premier’s rule.

It is noteworthy to mention Sirimavo era solidified Sri Lanka’s foreign policy in the coming decades, which set the stage for the island to increase bilateral ties with India and China. In fact, Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi was a trustworthy friend of Mrs. Bandaranaike. This period also saw the closest bilateral relations between the neighbouring countries. Especially, Mrs. Bandaranaike was a giant among Non-Alignment leaders. In the summer of 1976 at the fifth Non Aligned Movement (NAM) summit held at the Bandaranaike Memorial International Conference Hall(BMICH) in Colombo, Mrs. Bandaranaike stated, “The non-aligned countries should fight against injustice, intolerance, inequality, old concept of empire and intervention.”

On the domestic political scenario, the opposition leader J.R. Jayewardene and his deputy Ranasinghe Premadasa had been outspoken critics of Sirimavo Bandaranaike policies. When she lost 1977 general elections, it was extremely a difficult situation for Mrs. Bandaranaike and for the Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP) coalition partners who had developed a remarkable sense for socialist political culture within the multicultural society in  Sri Lanka. Seven years later Mrs. Bandaranaike had lost her civic rights, the party hierarchy nominated veteran SLFP stalwart Hector Kobbekaduwa for the forthcoming referendum. The Referendum results did not reflect the true situation. Then while the    atmosphere began to change in the island country after the eruption of ethnic conflict and signing of the Indo-Lanka accord. This scenario caused strong anti-United National Party (UNP) regime change feeling.  In a closely fought presidential election in 1988, the SLFP leader Mrs. Bandaranaike lost to UNP presidential candidate Mr. Premadasa. There were no immediate solutions to the crisis in Sri Lanka under Premadasa’s presidency.  Hence  in  the South, due to the JVP uprising and the Tamil tiger (LTTE) attacks in Northern and Eastern provinces, conditions inside the Island nation was going from bad to worse.

At the same time, the crisis in the Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP)  came to surface and the party was divided into several wings.  Thus, the time had come for SLFP party unity for doing away with the seventeen years United National Party (UNP) rule. Mrs. Bandaranaike was convinced that it was time for a new generation of party leadership. She opened the corridors of political power to Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga, Mahinda Rajapaksa, and Maithripala Sirisena who later became presidents of Sri Lanka. In late years, Mrs. Bandaranaike was a prime minister for a short time from when her daughter Mrs. Kumaratunga was president. On the Foreign Policy front she reworked strong bilateral ties with India and China and her policies remained important for Non Aligned Movement (NAM) nations and for India  and China ties with Sri Lanka. After more than fifty years of service to the Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP), to the nation many of the Sri Lankan’s were finding it hard to come to terms with Sirimavo’s sudden death on 10th October, 2000.Late premier Sirimavo Bandaranaike’s pragmatic policies mattered very much for the South Asian island nation, the region and to the world at large.

* Pooja Singh, a scholar of Masters in Diplomacy, Law, Business at Jindal School of International Affairs, India.

Continue Reading

South Asia

Indian Human Rights violation in Kashmir

Adeela Ahmed

Published

on

In International conflict management, the models and approaches to solve the deep-rooted issue are vital and applicable but these models became fragile if any one of the belligerent states lacks the intent to solve any tangible solution. India rigid stance of avoiding any Peace Talks on Kashmir issue is the main irritant between rivalries which derails the conflict resolution. It is far important for rivalries to elucidate the dispute to move ahead.  Because it is ultimate truth that all the conflict and crises have an alternate way of tenacity.

In South Asian framework, Indian strategic ambitions are the main stumbling block in the way of Kashmir Resolution. While in the Global framework, major powers like Russia and USA military and then ideological interests compels states not to play any significant role for the resolution of Kashmir conflict.

Kashmiri Freedom Movement started from 1931 and still in 2018 it is constantly being exploited in the hands of Indian aggressive leaders. From 87 years, Indian barbarism is not a top-secret. Indian wanted to sideline and suppress the Kashmir issue in the prism of their national interests but the issue will remain alive with determined efforts of the Kashmiri and Pakistani people, human right activists, political and military leaders. The issue of Jammu and Kashmir must be resolved as per aspirations of Kashmiris.

Pakistanis and Kashmiris across the world chronicled their protest against Indian brutality and illegitimate occupation in Kashmir. Struggle for freedom of Kashmiri people will one day succeed by the grace of Almighty Allah.  Each day is like a black day until the resolution of Jammu and Kashmir with the consent of Kashmiri people.

There are many pragmatic choices for the resolution of Kashmir issue but the real dilemma is that India is not ready to come on Table for Peace talks due to their hegemonic ambitions. Recent Talks at UNGA 73rd session was also negated by Indian. As a rational nuclear state, they should realize that Kashmir is a nuclear flashpoint. Both the nuclear states should talk constructively and negotiations are the only way forward in which mutual national interests must be considered.

In 1948, it was India who went to United Nations and then it was decided unanimously a plebiscite in Kashmir. It is the right of every Kashmiri to decide his destiny indigenously. As there are no law enforcement agencies of international organizations to implement its resolution but the role of P-5 states can facilitate for resolution. Till now no such role is played by them but the importance of UN forum cannot be negated as states like Pakistan can raise their voices at international level against Human Rights violations.

The Indian occupational forces under the cover of Armed Forces Special Protection Act (AFSPA) and other black laws frequently involve in religious cleansing of Muslims. After the martyrdom of Burhan Wani in 2016 Indian forces started using most dangerous weapons of pellet firing shotgun. Where are Human Rights Law against the killing of innocent Kashmiris? The lives of Kashmiris are as important the people killed in 9/11, London attacks, in Mumbai attack or a single Indian soldier. The US fought the war on terror and still engage in most complex war but What about Terror of India in Kashmir. Kashmir needs not to be forgotten at all. US Secretary of State Michael Pompeo asked Pakistan to abandon terrorist attacks into India but from Where Kashmiri demand Freedom. The US needs to let her interest go, at least for once, to settle the Kashmir issue. For Pakistan, it is not just a matter of territorial importance but relates to the lives of Kashmiri people who are suffering at the hands of India’s state terrorism.

Modi government is supporting to have Direct Talks with the Taliban, but when it is about Kashmir, they became silent. There is a dire need for the Indian government to review their mindless Kashmir policy. Kashmiri people must be given the right of plebiscite to decide them their destiny. Pakistan’s foreign policy is on right direction that the tools of diplomacy need to be improved for better results and peace process is the only way forward.

Continue Reading

Latest

Trending

Copyright © 2018 Modern Diplomacy