3 Sep, 2010 | Original article in Urdu at Daily Tawar

By Hafeez Hassanabadi

(Baloch Qaumi Tehreek Mein Sherkat Par Asraar, Aur Durust Lafzo Ki Ghalat Tashreeh Ki Takraar)

Translated from the Urdu by Zrombesht Baloch

Following the Baloch massacre in Noshrowan and an indiscriminate trail of murders, the Baloch are once again facing scrutiny. In today's technologically advanced world, the ruin of a nation is easy to accomplish due to human fallibility and the wide availability of lethal weapons within arms reach. Iran and Pakistan, well aware of this, have initiated an undeclared genocide on the Baloch nation that makes Baloch lives even more miserable.

The Baloch have risked everything in this current war for survival and they have no options left. Even if the Baloch pledge allegiance to Iran and Pakistan, they still face the same threats, so the Baloch have only one path open to them--the arduous path to freedom that they now travel. Yet despite this dreadful situation, some Baloch political parties are part of the struggle in name only. Even daily cases of young Balochs going missing fail to capture their attention--nor do bodies hanging from trees or people's sky-tearing cries open their eyes or jolt their 'Balochism.'

Despite witnessing perdition all around, these people do not tire of calling for unity (by now empty words), even though circumstances made it clear long ago that everyone should participate in the struggle according to their respective strengths. Apparently this contradiction is above the logic of an ordinary Baloch--that we all talk about Baloch and Balochistan, but are yet unable to reach agreement on the single point that saving our motherland is the first priority, and only then should we advance our own interests and ideas.

Despite the willingness of all political parties to play a role in halting the ongoing genocide, why do all political parties fail to agree on a single point, and instead move along separate paths?

This is the basic point--it has been discussed several times, but it needs further elaboration because now, in addition to the BNF, BNP Mengal's party leaders have likewise become the victims of state target killings. Feeling the drama of direct state aggression against its political leaders, the National Party, too, will sometimes issue a statement warning that its party leaders are unsafe, even though the role of the National Party (NP), peaceful political struggle advocate that it is, is really that of the running jackal of the jungle who, after hearing news of an order to massacre elephants, runs himself.

The story goes: Some asked: "˜Everything okay, Jackal? Why are you running?!'

The jackal replied: "˜Dear! The king has ordered that all elephants be killed!'

The questioner asked curiously: "˜The king has announced orders to kill elephants. You are a jackal, why do you have to run?!'

The jackal thought arguing with this "muddleheaded person" was just waste of time, so he continued running, saying: "˜Who knows? Maybe someone will mistake us for a baby elephant and kill us!'

Previously, whereas only parties included in the BNF were direct targets of state aggression, now BNP Mengal, too, is included in the list, thus enlarging the list of martyrs for the useless demand of the right of self-determination.

In this article, we will consider the potential reasons for the roadblock that prevents any kind of coalition from forming among these parties for a superficial look would suggest that the BNP Mengal party should not have any problem joining the pro-independence movement, and deep consideration shows that other parties would follow its lead.

Unfortunately, however, these parties will not be effective or cooperative participants in the pro-independence movement till they dare to use the real meanings of the terminology involved, which at present, change with the speaker.

When Nawab Khair Baksh Marri, for example, announces that the Baloch nation should get ready to 'die' for the sake of its survival, the meaning of this statement is taken at face value--that Nawab Khair Baksh clearly thinks the Baloch nation's survival is dependent on its independence and that the Baloch has to has to do everything in its power to get rid of its Punjabi and Gajars (Fars) rulers. If a similar statement is issued by Sardar Ataullah Mengal, however, the next day a note of clarification in the newspapers is issued--from all corners--stating that the center should relinquish its hold on the provinces and keep only three administrations under its control, as if the term "˜dying' is a 'struggle' for provincial autonomy. Whether BNP Mengal demands "˜provincial autonomy' or "˜right of self-determination' it doesn't matter, because their demand is so clear that it could never be confused with the demand for independence. In fact, calling for the right of self-determination would be an improvement.

Regarding the Baloch genocide, statements are equally misleading, e.g. no pro-independence party has ever accused the Pakistani establishment of genocide, rather it holds the state responsible for the barbarism. Whereas the pro-parliamentarians, under their blanket of slavish backwardness, accuses the establishment, i.e., any political party that is in power. Very rarely in Baloch society, except when under some political pressure, do such people use the term of "˜slavery.' Are they so literally doltish that they do not understand that the solution to slavery is freedom? Or else the possibility remains that they will always participate in elections and their aim is their own structure of provincial government.

When the pro-independence movement calls for collective ways of struggle, they mean to include, along with the armed struggle, all democratic methods in the shape of demonstrations and public gatherings so that more and more people become aware of the Pakistani state's bad deeds and are convinced to participate in Balochistan's independence struggle. Whereas the exact same statement's meaning as understood by the pro-parliamentarians is to let the armed struggle carry on in the mountains and they shall support them in parliament. Stating so, they forget that their participation in the parliament undermines the armed struggle in the freedom movement. Their participation in parliament supports the Pakistani colonization of Balochistan, legalizing and submitting to it--even though they are well aware of the fact that participation in the struggle is possible without staying in power. They would never relinquish power because they have accepted the division and occupation of the Baloch land. Such people's demands are no more than "˜hail he who gives, hail he who doesn't!'

Both pro-independence and pro-parliament supporters express their willingness to negotiate with the Pakistani state, but their definition of negotiation varies. When pro-independence supporters express a willingness to talk, they start with a single point agenda of independence. The pro-parliament supporters, however, interpret negotiations to mean discussing the issue of control and call upon Saudi Arabia, UAE or sometimes the UN to play a third party role. Beyond these demands, they are not clear. This conclusion can easily be drawn by considering the comments of a former BNP senator who, once on a TV program, scaled down the issue of Balochistan's independence to that of a Musharraf-Nawaz grievance, prepared to hand it over to an Arab Shaikh for resolution.

With regards to the missing persons issue, the stands of both parties differ widely. For pro-independence supporters, the issue of missing persons is as important as the issue of their treatment--are their conditions worse in the torture cells because of their political beliefs and demands? The pro-parliamentarians are, on the other hand, concerned about the release of missing persons because it is a necessary step in order to rebuild confidence in the state among the Balochs, so that the pro-parliament supporters can again talk to Islamabad in the name of the Baloch, elicit an apology for all that happened and assure that it will never be repeated. They desire a rapprochement in order that they themselves avoid being disappeared and martyred like Ghulam Muhammad and his colleagues.

"˜Martyrs blood will not go to waste' maintains this dual meaning on the parts of both parties. Pro-independence supporters claim this with the understanding that Baloch are seeking the independence of Balochistan. Pro-parliament supporters employ this phrase in order to gather more and more votes under their arms. Our explanation of terms might shock some friends, but this is the truth. These people coming up for election and re-election will surely mention the sacrifices of the martyrs. Consciously or unconsciously, they will convert the blood of Baloch martyrs into a begging pot, asking people to cast their votes for people are in a collision course with the Baloch national freedom movement.

"˜No more to iniquity' bears a dual meaning, as well. Pro-independence supporters defend this with full force, while pro-parliamentarians have been saying this continuously for the last 5 years, but in practical terms, mean it only during photo sessions in front of Press Clubs or on some special occasions while speaking on a stage, as if the meaning of "˜no more to iniquity' refers to future incidents.

The meaning of "˜We all are brothers' has different meanings, as well. Pro-independence supporters mean all those people who are aware of their homeland slavery and want to see their homeland independent. The pro-parliamentarians who characterize the Balochs as brothers include the opportunists. Can any brotherhood really be seen between Dr. Allah Nizar or Nawab Brahmdagh Bugti and the Pakistani parliament's MPA, MNA, Senator, District and Divisional officer who hold power and meet with Secretaries, DCSPs etc. on a daily basis, while the other risks his life in the battlefield fighting the occupation?

When pro-independence leader Mr. Hayrbyar Marri mentions Pakistan is powerful, he means the Baloch nation should be steady and clever in the ongoing war. He knows the enemy is strong, but could be defeated by correct tactics. Whereas the same sentence used by the pro-parliamentarians means Pakistan is undefeatable and we should, therefore, reject the demand of freedom. This is where the pro-independence supporters believe the armed struggle should be strengthened in the freedom movement, while Pakistani parliament seekers keep their selves busy in bonding with powerholders.

In this short discussion we can easily draw the conclusion that there is a huge difference in the paths and motives of the Pakistani parliament seekers and the pro-independence supporters. Nevertheless, as it did with the BNF, the state seems to be trying to jolt the BNP Mengal. This means the state is well aware of the clashes of thoughts between the leaders and the workers of these groups and is, therefore, systematically targeting its workers who are the supporters of the Baloch freedom fighters themselves. In this evolving situation it cannot be overruled that those members of the NP will be targeted, who against the wishes of their party, too, are committed to support the freedom movement. It means that Pakistani parliament seekers must keep in mind the true meanings of these terms and phrases, honestly analyze the circumstances and incidents, and should, for the sake of the survival of the Baloch nation, join forces with those whom are directly involved in the struggle. Then the day Baloch parties decide to cut off relations with Pakistan, all terms, phrases and sentences will be clear to all and pave the way for unity. Otherwise a silly Punjabi may mistake a jackal as an baby elephant and kill it!