Reposted from The BalochWarna | August 11, 2012 | Story

By Dr. Shahswar K.

Initially there was no connection between Baluchistan and the phenomenon of Pakistan except one. This connection, as it happened, became one of the most disastrous and destructive calamity known to Baluch history. Baluch approached an Indian (Gujarati) lawyer Jinnah Poonja, later named as Mohammad Ali Jinnah, and then employed him as a legal advisor to Khan of Kalat. The main reason for employing a lawyer, however, was to pursue their deepest desire to regain their independence from Britain. To this end, they needed a professional legal adviser. Jinnah accepted the offer and acted as mouthpiece of the established order. His stance at this time was fundamentally at odd with the notion of Pakistan. In all probability, the thought of Pakistan had never crossed his mind or if it did he met it with a good deal of incredulity and disbelief. He was for peaceful coexistence of Hindus and Muslims under British rule.

The term "Pakistan" was coined by a number of Indian (Punjabi) Students in mid 1930s in London. The decade the term was invented was a decade of intense political and economic upheavals. The world had just experienced the greatest financial crash and barely a decade was passed from the end of the Second World War. Polarization of ideologies and political views were at their sharpest ends. Extremism was in vogue in all its shades and colours, the extremism of the left, the right, fascist and religious fundamentalism. The progressive camp, social democrats and liberals were retreating and were squeezed to one side. Religious fundamentalists saw fascism as a natural ally and showed great sympathy towards Hitler and his political philosophy at the time. Indian progressive political class congregated in Indian independence movement. The Indian Congress Party provided the platform for their anti-colonial struggle. It was at this historical juncture that the bizarre concept of "Pakistan" was invented. The doctrine of a "Nation of Islam" at any historical junction but more specifically in mid 1930s can only be a by-product of a specific mindset. It can only stem from one outlook and that is from a reactionary paranoid Muslim jihadist.

A nation cannot just be created by appeal to religious revelation or delirium. Nations are not formed by faith in messages of sacred or secular books. The constructive fallacy of the thought that a nation can be designed and manufactured out of divine scriptures or rational reasoning is self-refuting. Nations are formed over centuries or even over thousands of years. The quest for the ideal Islamic Nation as the perfect national model, merely as a thought is foolish and in practice is a monstrous crime. By all accounts "Pakistan" fits this description most accurately. Accordingly, the phenomenon of "Pakistan" is not just completely daft but it is also utterly counterintuitive. It does not contain an iota of rational reasoning and valid moral judgement.

Let us take Baluchistan or Kurdistan to throw some light in actual meaning of the terms used to describe these nations. Both terms are composed of two words. Baluchistan is composed of "˜Baluch' and "˜stan' and Kurdistan is composed of "˜Kurd' and "˜stan.' The formation of these terms was not a by-product of an act of religious hallucination or a pre-planned rational design. Literally, it has taken centuries for Baluch to settle on their homeland and manage to construct their unique language, culture, values, music, arts, literature, laws, and their economic and social institutions. The innermost secrets of their hearts, thinking and feelings are the product of their long history as a unifying social unit. The strength of their will, clarity of mind and objectives are therefore defined within this shared unity.

The nouns which end with the suffix "˜stan' express the attribute of belonging. The noun combined with the suffix contains the name of the nation and the land where that nation inhabit. The prefix "˜Baluch' in case of Baluchistan designates the nation and the suffix "˜stan' their land. That is to say Baluchistan is the homeland of Baluch people. The term "Pakistan", on the other hand, is a counterfeit notion. In reality it does not designate anything. This term does not exist in the languages of those nations who opted for creation of Pakistan. Moreover, there is no such an entity as a "Pakistani" nation. National identity is a voluntary expression of belonging and not a desire and a wish of a savage and pitiless conqueror or an empire to compel a true national identity to be called by another name.

The term "Pakistan" was coined with one clear intent. This was the brainchild of those mercenaries Indian Muslim who were convinced that they had been called to rule the subcontinent. They were among those who lived in luxury and splendour, and cared more for might and magnificence of Muslim rulers of India than democratic and human rights. This was the dominant thought of a small group of segregated Muslim elites who deluded themselves of being of superior species than other Indians. Pondering a bit more deeply into this flawed belief will reveal the exact intention behind the invention of the term "Pakistan."

The term literally means the land of "˜clean or pure' people. The prefix "˜Pak' means pure and the suffix "˜stan' means the land of clean people. The term contrasts two opposite entity. Clean in isolation does not exist. It is meaningless to talk about Pak (Pure) without an opposite point of reference. We understand the meaning of clean when it is compared with its opposite, which is unclean. The two are of a kind that gives meaning to each other. Disassociating one from its opposite will designate nothing. To think of a land of cleans will naturally be followed by a land that is inhibited by unclean people. Those who wish to break free means breaking free from the unclean people. In the historical context in which this term was then invented we find no other reasonable intention except this. Observing this with a critical eye and unbiased reflection leaves hardly a doubt about the sinister intent and racist nature of the term.

The term was coined when the Hitler's Fascism was emerging as a major political force in Europe. It was particularly a major challenge to the British Empire. Needless to say that Nazi political philosophy struck a chord with Muslim Fundamentalism at the time. Those fundamentalist Indian students who came up with the idea of "Pakistan" were studying in England during this period and were exposed to Fascist political philosophy and their racial superiority creed. On the top of all this, Fascists and Muslim fundamentalists shared common political enemies. Liberals, social democrats and communists were their chief political opponents. Those who professed a "˜Nation of Islam' under those momentous events at the time were among believers of segregation politics on ground of religion and race. The thought of curving an Islamic nation out of India with a draconian religious penal law can only then be the work of no other but a fundamentalist mind.

Hidden in this agenda was a sinister plan. When you create so called a "˜Nation' and call it "˜Pakistan' the land of clean out of India, you do not need to be an extraordinary logician to detect a sinister hidden agenda in the plan and also the sheer absurdity of the idea. This explicitly implies that you remove only the clean part of this unity, which you have already designated as the Muslim occupied part. But who were the rest of population in India that did not fall into circumference of this Muslim fundamentalist circle. By their reasoning they were the vast majority of Indian who were not Muslim. Can one not see a parallel between this and Fascist idea of superior race at the same time? Was it merely a coincidence or an intrinsically shared philosophy but merely expressed in religious tone?

The Indian Muslim students who came to study in England were from exceptionally privileged class. They undoubtedly practiced the cast system and regarding themselves to be from a superior race in India. Under such political environment and ideological position what would be the intention of inventing a term that is plainly regards a section of the same society as "˜clean' and another section as "˜unclean.' This fact cannot be denied. Those deny it or have denied it consciously or unconsciously have subsequently overlooked the unconceivable amount of death, destruction and misery that this fake Frankenstein state and its creed has brought so far.

The sheer absurdity of the whole shenanigan experiment does not end just with the term itself. It goes all the way to the process of creation of Pakistan also. Muslim League, the religious party that led the formation of Pakistan was not a genuine grass-root political party. It was a by-product of British Empire. In order to counter the growing influence of Indian secular, liberal and socialist political parties who were demanding independence, British created this religious party.

The party's leader, M. A. Jinnah who became the founder of Pakistan had very close relation with the British Raj. Until 1946 he categorically rejected the idea of creation of a separate Muslim nation. Jinnah was born on 25 December 1876 in a prosperous Gujarati merchant family. His father was Jinnahbai Poonja and his mother Mithibai. His grandfather, Poonja Gokuldas Meghji, changed his religion and converted from Hindu to Islam. As a family they were the followers of the Ismaili Khoja. In the later years Jinnah also changed religion and converted to a more dominant branch of shia Islam. His family spoke Gujarati at home and Jinnah after completing his early studies in Karachi and Bombay went to England and studied law in London.

London left him with life changing impression. He imitated and adopted the lifestyle of the British ruling class and ostentatiously acted accordingly. This imitation comprised almost every aspect of his daily life including the language he chose to speak at home. Jinnah first joined the Indian National Congress but left this party for Muslim League in 1913. Three years later, in 1916, he became the president of Muslim League.

Jinnah advocated the unity of India until 1946. As it became too obvious for everyone that the days of British Empire were numbered in India Mr Jinnah leaned towards the division of India. The green light and encouragement of the British authorities in dividing India on religious ground did also play a significant role in his decision. Above anything else Jinnah was a calculated Machiavellian imposter. The most palpable truth about him was that he was not faithful to his word.

He employed the notions of humanity, democracy, freedom, equality and rule of law just as tools to serve his personal interest. On one hand he invited his missionaries for a dream of holy Islamic empire and on the other hand for equality, liberty and justice. As an ardent apostle of British Empire he adored the British superiority and their right to keep the vanquished subjugated but at the same time he called for an independent Islamic nation when it suited him. He proposed the Islamic constitution while pretending to be an adherent of secular politics. He imposed a language that none of the nations that comprised the boundary of Pakistan spoke. All in all, he was capricious, illiberal, and unjust man. He harboured tyranny, bigotry, intolerance, superstition and religious fanaticism as and when benefited him.

The devastating plight of Eastern Balochistan is invariably linked with this individual and this was the only link that Baluchistan had with the phenomenon of Pakistan. Baluch gradually but increasingly were moving forward to formation a unified nation from fourteenth and fifteenth century. They succeeded to unify their nation by 1666 and their unified state lasted until 1839. It was during this year that the army of British Empire invaded Baluchistan. The British remained in Baluchistan by being able to impose several agreements bilaterally to give their illegal occupation a feel of legitimacy.

The British rulers with these treaties undermined the inherent democratic rights of Baloch nation and its future economic, political, legal and cultural prospects. They also divided Baluchistan illegally in three parts by drawing two arbitrary lines. In 1871, they drew the "˜Goldsmith Line' and by this line they divided Baluchistan in two parts. They kept the Eastern part of Baluchistan under their own control and the Western Baluchistan was given to the Persian rulers. In 1893, they draw another line the "˜Durand Line' by which a segment of Northern part of Baluchistan was given to Afghanistan.

Despite being divided into three parts, Baluch have never stopped their struggle to acquire their democratic rights. They have fought ceaselessly to end the illegal occupation of their homeland. All Baluch persistently joined forces against British occupiers to liberate themselves. From 1920s onwards their struggle was elevated into a more advanced political movement. They embarked in a modern political struggle by setting up political organizations and associations for the first time in the history of Baluchistan. The overriding reason for adopting a modern method and mechanism of struggle was specifically to hasten the pace of attaining their independence. It was in accordance with this line of political struggle that in mid 1930s leading Baluch political activists contacted an Indian lawyer. The foremost objective behind this decision was to employ a lawyer to go after regaining independence through legal means.

Baluch did not have a lawyer. A few young political activists who lacked sufficient resources, experience and education could not challenge the British state and their associates in Baluchistan. That is why they approached Mr Jinnah. The reason that they approached him was not because he was a man of reason, of real merit and distinction but because of his religious belief. He was known as a Muslim lawyer. Otherwise, Baluch virtually had no knowledge of his politics, personality, his background and his professional integrity and competency.

His employment was solely on an ad hoc basis. In this capacity he was an employee of the state of Kalat from 1936 to 1946. He was paid handsomely and treated with the utmost respect, courtesy and Baluch hospitality. In return he did not just do anything as far as the issue of independence went but as soon as he became the head of the state of Pakistan he showed his true character. He was at once transformed into a vicious, wicked, charlatan tyrant. Jinnah expressed no doubt on the validity of the innate legal rights of Baluch to regain their independence as long as the British were in Baluchistan. As soon as Pakistan was created and British left Baluchistan his stance on Baluchistan changed completely. He launched a neo-colonial policy to erase all traces of Baluch nation and transform Baluchistan to a den of slavery. Subsequently, his plan of obedience made by compulsion led to subjugation of Baluchistan once again and has caused irreparable losses to Baluch.

The military and administrative apparatus that Pakistan inherited was the one the British Raj left behind. They were the same trusted personnel that kept the British colonial power running in India. Jinnah employed this repressive military machinery to compel Baluch to merge with Pakistan. But there was absolutely no incentive whatsoever in the idea and prospect of Pakistan to induce the Baluch to swap their freedom for a barbarous, warmongering, zealous fanatic state. Baluch knew the nature of the newly created state of Pakistan and history has proved how accurate they were. Jinnah in the end resorted to military force to subdue Baluch.

What Mr Jinnah did to Baluch nation reminds one to one particular bird. This bird is classified as a brood parasite that belongs to Cuckoo family. All species in this family are not brood parasites. Only a sizable minority behave as brood parasites. When these birds are about to lay egg they lay their eggs in the nests of other birds i.e. Dunnocks, Meadow Pipits, and Reed Warblers. Their eggs are incubated by these host species. Once the eggs are hatched since the Cuckoo chick is considerably bigger and stronger than the native birds it will confiscate all the food brought to the nest. As the host chicks are made to starve they get weaker and in due course the Cuckoo ejects the host chicks one by one by pushing them over the nest. The chicks fallen to the ground face death and hence, the squatter parasite deprive the lawful residents of the nest the right to life altogether. After eliminating the legitimate occupants, the Cuckoo will have the entire nest to itself and also will have the parents exclusively under its control. Jinnah and his subsequent followers have not just acted in the same way as this brood parasite in Baluchistan but unlike this parasite that limits its cruelty to the legitimate occupant chicks they have aimed at complete extermination and genocide of Baluch nation.

If it was not for Jinnah there would be no connection between Baluchistan and the Islamic state of Pakistan. Over ten years of working for the state of Kalat, Jinnah discovered all weaknesses and strengths of the Baluch political system and also the vast resources of Baluchistan and its strategic location. Even some months before the division of Indian subcontinent he was not sure about the final decision of the British regarding creation of Pakistan. When he signed the agreement that was between the state of Kalat and the British, he explicitly recognised Baluchistan as an independent and sovereign state. During this time he was still in a state of shock and disbelief that he could be the head of a separate state from India and his authority would not be undermined by giant political figures such as Gandhi and Nehru. To pretend that the creation of Pakistan is in accordance to the democratic principle of the right of self-determination he signed the agreement that returned the sovereignty of Baluchistan's state to Baluch people. It could have been mark of outmost folly, at the time, had he not signed the agreement.

As soon as Pakistan was created and he became its general governor he changed his mind as he did so often when it served his interest. Duplicity was his motto. This was the fatal connection between Baluchistan and the British colonial progeny, Pakistan. Jinnah knew the grave weaknesses of the political and military establishment of the state of Baluchistan. He knew that the ordinary Baluch and its tiny educated elite would not go under bondage of another even more brutal and corrupt colonial power. Pakistan ruling establishment then invested their time and resources in some non-Baluch individuals. These individuals were as one would expect British devotees employed to rule Baluchistan but as British Empire was leaving they switched political allegiance and overnight and became the most fanatic advocate of Islamic state of Pakistan. Jinnah found his support for Pakistan among these individuals and a few very ignorant, gullible, greedy and insecure Baluch Khans and Sardars. These people knew well that in a free and democratic Baluchistan they would not enjoy the same status and prestige so they sided with Jinnah's colonial plan.

One can safely say that those few who sided with Pakistan plan were mostly non-Baluch but both Baluch and non-Baluch individuals who sided with Pakistan were among the most backward, uninformed and undemocratic section of Baluch society. In contrast, the Baluch at large and their representative in both Baluchistan assemblies categorically rejected Jinnah's immoral and illegal plan. They knew their democratic rights and they were far more progressive and democratic in their outlook than the whole political and ideological machinery that created Pakistan. Pakistan and its political and military could not convince Baluch and their legitimate leaders through democratic rational debate and discussion so they had to rely on brute force. Thus, if it was not for Jinnah Baluchistan now would not be a colony of Punjabi military establishment. If it was not for this connection Baluchistan would not have endured all untold destruction, killing and misery at the hand of Pakistani state and military. Pakistan is simply an illegal occupier. One must be completely blind or totally ignorant to deny this fact. Pakistan has no right to be in Baluchistan. The Baluch nation will not be free, democratic and prosperous as long as Baluchistan remains under colonial grip of the occupying states of Pakistan and Iran.

Dr Shahswar K is a Baloch political and Human Rights activist. He is Senior Lecturer in Economics at London Metropolitan University, UK. He the author of "Money and its Origins"