End of Pakistan's Baloch Insurgency?

[IBSA]

The End of Pakistan's Baloch Insurgency?

Since its beginning in 2004, the Pakistan's Baloch insurgency is caught up in the worst infighting ever known to the general public. Different left-wing underground armed groups that had been fighting Islamabad for a free Baloch homeland have now started to attack each other's camps. If the infighting exacerbates, Islamabad will have solid reasons to rejoice the end of one of the two deadly insurgencies it has been facing for nearly a decade (the other being the Taliban insurgency).

Overshadowed by the deadlier Taliban insurgency, the Baloch resistance did not draw ample attention in the national media but it was certainly a matter of deep concern for the past three consecutive governments. The Baloch insurgents had attacked almost all prime installations of the Pakistani government, including the military cantonment in Quetta, Balochistan's capital; important government buildings and killed senior government officials.

The Baloch had confronted the Pakistani state on at least four occasions in the past. The Pakistani government adopted numerous approaches to undermine the Baloch resistance but none of these approaches fully worked until infighting crept the ranks of the Baloch. In the past, Islamabad carried out military operations, bought the loyalties of rival tribal chiefs or empowered the so-called moderate leadership of the Baloch and also sponsored religious extremist groups in order to counter the Baloch nationalists. All such policies failed to completely uproot the resistance in the mineral-rich region. There has only been only one antidote to the Baloch movement: Infighting.

On November 3, the United Baloch Army, an underground armed organization, said the Baloch Liberation Army (BLA), another armed group, had killed one of it its commanders, Ali Sher, and detained four of its 'freedom fighters'. This was an unprecedented development as the Baloch insurgents had never attacked each other in the past although half a dozen armed groups have been operating separately for a decade to challenge the Pakistani state. The killing of a fellow Baloch commander comes in the midst of a call two days earlier by two most important pro-independence Baloch political organizations, the Baloch National Movement (BNM) and the Baloch Students Organization (BSO) that appealed to all the armed groups to refrain from fighting each other. The BNM and the BSO provide support for the call for a free Baloch land among the people through political rallies and distribution of literature among the masses. In the process of their overt public support for the idea of a free Balochistan, the BNM and the BSO have lost the largest number of political activists in Pakistan's brutal crackdown against the Baloch political activists.

Unlike the past resistance movements, the ongoing Baloch resistance had created serious challenges for Pakistan for at least four reasons.

First, it lasted longer than any of the past resistance moment. Second, the armed struggle reached the breadth and width of Balochistan. It was expanded from rural mountainous regions to the city centers. Third, the movement involved Baloch women and children who supported the armed groups through regular protest rallies. Fourth, the Baloch resistance drew more international attention than ever before. In 2012, the U.S. Congress convened a hearing on Balochistan and supported the demand for a free Baloch land. The conflict in Balochistan has drastically influenced India-Pakistan relations as Islamabad has accused New Delhi of supporting the insurgency in Balochistan.

What suddenly caused the dramatic fall of a movement that was otherwise capable of giving Islamabad a serious headache?

While the state-sponsored killing of a top Baloch tribal leader, Nawab Akbar Bugti in August 2006, had escalated the insurgency, the natural death of another veteran nationalist leader, Nawab Khair Bakhsh Marri in June 2014 has caused the dramatic decline of the Baloch separatist movement.

Widely perceived as the godfather of the Baloch armed movement, Mr. Marri was a Marxist who ardently advocated the idea of a free Balochistan. I met and interviewed him at his Karachi residence in 2008. He was old and frail but said there was no way the Baloch could coexist with Pakistan. Marri was believed to be running the Baloch armed group, the Baloch Liberation Army. Islamabad had already pitted his pro-Pakistan tribal rivals against him to weaken his political position. After his death, differences broke out even among the Marri brothers on the question as to who would succeed the senior Marri. It is believed that the BLA and the UBA are loyal to two warring Marri brothers.

Currently, there is persistent tension between the two groups as to who can join and lead these organizations. In the past, the Baloch armed groups drew their manpower from the largest Baloch tribe, the Marris, only. There has been disequilibrium in the recent past as non-tribal activists from other parts of Balochistan have also joined these groups. Differences exist on how much to trust the newcomers and how much authority they should be granted. Besides the UBA, the BLA has also been criticized by another armed organization, the Lashkar-e-Balochistan, which, a recent statement published in Urdu language newspaper Daily Tawar, said the BLA was more active on social media than the actual battleground. The BLA is the oldest and the most dangerous among all Baloch groups operating in Balochistan.

Meanwhile, on another front, Baloch armed fighters struggling inside Balochistan have come out against those Baloch politicians who are currently living in exile. Those risking their lives in the battlefield in Balochistan against Pakistani forces feel somewhat betrayed that some other leaders are enjoying 'comfortable' lives in western capitals and capitalizing on their struggle. An awkward series of public allegations was seen in Balochistan's local Urdu newspapers last week between Dr. Allah Nazar, the supposed head of another Baloch armed group, the Baloch Liberation Front (BLF) and the Khan of Kalat Mir Suleman Dawood, a daydreamer who perceives himself as the future king of a free Balochistan. Mr. Dawood, living in exile in the United Kingdom, has been instrumental in reaching out to American and western parliamentarians to get their support for a free Balochistan.

The armed resistance gained enormous public support in mid-2000s because of Pakistan's excessive use of force against the Baloch masses. But the insurgents failed to utilize this time to come on one single platform to put forward their demands. More and more armed groups emerged among the Baloch which made it almost impossible for them to properly coordinate with each other. The armed groups alienated the fellow moderate Baloch political parties by questioning their patriotism and commitment to the 'national cause'. Human rights groups criticized the Baloch armed groups for killing numerous non-Baloch citizens under the allegations of spying for the Pakistani government while ordinary Baloch citizens also became victim of their attacks on similar unsubstantiated allegations.

After one year of continued fighting, the Baloch insurgents appear frustrated with the lack of international support for their movement. A decade later, even not a single country supports the free Balochistan movement. The Baloch fighters seem jaded with how moderate political parties, such as the ruling National Party of Dr. Malik Baloch, the chief minister of Balochistan, capitalize on their hard work and gain political power. Islamabad's counter-insurgency policy can hardly be credited for pushing the Baloch insurgents to this level. Frustration, suspicion, infighting and division are the common features of the end of a guerrilla fight. Perhaps that time has come in Balochistan.

The End of Pakistan's Baloch Insurgency? | Malik Siraj Akbar

 

[Hari Sud]

Sorry Baloch, the timing is wrong. The great champion of freedom and self determination all over the world, the US has befriend Pakistan with the sole purpose of getting its troops and hardware out of Afghanistan using Karachi port. This leaves no room for Baloch tribesmen voice to be heard.

Any Indian support was consistently stymied by the likes of Robin Raphael at the State Department.

The cause may be lost for now but hold on to your hardware, there will be time again. As the situation is drifting towards a confrontation, India and Pakistan will fight another war. One cannot say that it is a nuclear war. Either way the nuclear or conventional, Pakistan will be cut to size for a long time to come. That will be your chance. At that time, no power like US would be able to stop you from independence.

 

[Kashif]

Sorry Baloch, the timing is wrong. The great champion of freedom and self determination all over the world, the US has befriend Pakistan with the sole purpose of getting its troops and hardware out of Afghanistan using Karachi port. This leaves no room for Baloch tribesmen voice to be heard.

Any Indian support was consistently stymied by the likes of Robin Raphael at the State Department.

The cause may be lost for now but hold on to your hardware, there will be time again. As the situation is drifting towards a confrontation, India and Pakistan will fight another war. One cannot say that it is a nuclear war. Either way the nuclear or conventional, Pakistan will be cut to size for a long time to come. That will be your chance. At that time, no power like US would be able to stop you from independence.

War is not a solution, it will destroy both countries badly even its horrible impact on the region can not be ruled out, India should stop supporting BLA for their own good.

 

[maomao]

War is not a solution, it will destroy both countries badly even its horrible impact on the region can not be ruled out, India should stop supporting BLA for their own good.

How can you say that India supports BLA? If India would have supported BLA then Balochistan would have been an independent state by now!

 

[Ray]

War is not the answer and there is no requirement to do so.

The Baloch people are a unique ethno-linguistic group spread between Afghanistan, Iran, and Pakistan. Throughout history they have been the victims of marginalization within their respective countries. They have an inbuilt anger at being pushed to the periphery of nationalism within their countries.

If one examines the conflict drivers in Pakistani Balochistan, it is evident that a complete cessation of the conflict is unlikely because the drivers of the conflict includes tribal divisions, the Baloch-Pashtun divide, marginalization by Punjabi interests, and economic oppression.

The most powerful sore points are the domination of the Punjabi interests and economic oppression.

Internationally, Balochistan is important to the power strategy of the global players.

For the United States, Balochistan, an area that encompasses western Pakistan, eastern Iran, and a piece of southern Afghanistan, is critical to the maintenance of US hegemony in the Middle East and Central and South Asia.

For China, Balochistan is a region necessary for its own economic and political evolution into a world superpower.

Therefore, Balochistan becomes central to the development of geopolitical power in the 21st Century.

Further, Balochistan is also central to the development and export of energy from Central Asia & it access to the Indian Ocean plays a pivotal role for access to the Central Asian market and energy supply. This factor straps in other nations which may not be aspiring global superpower, but nonetheless are regional major players.

Now that the US has withdrawn from Afghanistan, it does not require Pakistan. That factor has dawned on Pakistan and that is why the Pakistan Army Chief is in the US knocking at Obama's door wailing that India's aggressive stand is upsetting Pakistan's attempt to curb the terrorists in NWFP, whereby keeping the bogey of Taliban and AQ alive so that Pakistan still is given the alms that she was getting when the US required Pakistan as a supply conduit for its troops in Afghanistan.

In an article published by the Qatari English-language newspaper The Peninsula, the author cited credible sources as saying that "the CIA is indulging in heavy recruitment of local people as agents (each being paid $500 a month)".

CIA carving out new role

The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), led by David Petraeus the former Commander, US Forces Afghanistan (USFOR-A), has a strategic, multidimensional interest in Balochistan, Pakistan's largest province. In March 2011, The Peninsula, Qatar's leading English language daily, revealed that the "CIA is indulging in heavy recruitment of local people as agents (each being paid $500 a month) in Balochistan to locate members of the Quetta Shura, a term used by the Americans for Mullah Omar-led Taliban commanders."

Over the long term, the CIA has an interest in keeping the strategically important Port of Gwadar out of China's influence. Over the short to medium term, the CIA also has an interest in supporting Jundallah, also known as People's Resistance Movement of Iran (PRMI), a violent organization that claims to be "fighting for the rights of Sunni Muslims in Iran."
CIA carving out new role - thenews.com.pk

There is no doubt that it makes strategic sense for the US to fund and fan the Jundullah so that it can squeeze Iran from both sides - Iraq and from Balochistan and at the same time sabotage and disrupt the Chinese from having a free run to build and then operate the link from Gwadar to Xinjiang.

Given the fluid geopolitical and geostrategic equations of the world, it would be too early to write off Balochistan insurgency.

Writing off is merely a pipedream of virulent day dreamers.

India does not have to go to war with Pakistan because there are greater players in this mug's game to allow India to be a spectator as the drama unfolds to India's advantage.

 

[Ray]

How can you say that India supports BLA? If India would have supported BLA then Balochistan would have been an independent state by now!

That is the usual from Pakistan.

India is always to blame, including for the creation of Pakistan.

It maybe worth noting that Bolchistan got independence from British on 11th August 1947.

But in 1948, Pakistan annexed the province.

Media reports indicate that within 24 hours of the declaration of Independence in 1947, the Khan of Kalat formed Balochistan's House of Commons and the House of Lords. On 16th December 1947 Khan of Kalat called a meeting of both houses of Balochistan to discuss the possibility of joining Pakistan. Reports suggest members from both Houses rejected the idea of joining Pakistan. But after that Pakistan invaded Balochistan and took control by imprisoning Khan of Kalat and his family members within the palace. This claim is however disputed by the Pakistani establishment who claim Balochistan consisted of four provinces of Makran, LasBela, Kharan and Kalat. Among them all were willing to join Pakistan except Kalat, but due to a past treaty it was incorporated into the country.

On August 11 1947, the British protectorate of Baluchistan declared its independence. Three days later, Pakistan also became an independent nation. But the two states coexisted for less than a year.

In March 1948, Pakistan invaded and seized Baluchistan. Under threat of imprisonment, the traditional Baluch leader, the Khan of Kalat, Mir Ahmed Yar Khan, was pressured to sign a treaty of integration. This treaty was, however, never agreed by the Baluchistan parliament and never mandated by the Baluch people.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2007/aug/15/pakistancelebratesbaluchista

 

[maomao]

@Ray What I know is that initially even Jinna accepted Balochistan (Kalat) as an independent state, however suddenly after 6-9 months they sent their armies to annex it! Balochistan was independent even before pakistan was created is a fact!

 

[Ray]

@Ray What I know is that initially even Jinna accepted Balochistan (Kalat) as an independent state, however suddenly after 6-9 months they sent their armies to annex it! Balochistan was independent even before pakistan was created is a fact!

Have a look at this letter from Jinnah written on 2 Feb 1948.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/drymountains/6812725249/

In Balochistan, Jinnah is seen as a man who ordered the Pakistan Army to annex Balochistan and force it to join Pakistan in 1948. The forcible inclusion of Balochistan in Pakistan ran counter to Baloch wishes: only a group of British-appointed tribal sardars in Balochistan's northern Pashtun belt agreed to join Pakistan in a July 1947 conference, where neither the Khan of Kalat—then the ruler of the Kalat state in present-day Balochistan—nor its sardars were included. The only body, similar to a representative assembly was the two-chamber Kalat Assembly. It declared that Kalat did not want to join the new state. Only 29-years-old, Ghaus Bux Bizenjo, the father of the National Party (NP) leader, Hasil Khan Bizenjo, clarified.

"I do not propose to create hurdles for the newly created state in matters of defense, external affairs and communications. But we want an honorable relationship and not a humiliating one. We don't want to amalgamate with Pakistan."

The Baloch narrative does not end here.

In fact, the current Baloch uprising is the fifth in Pakistan's history. This is not the first time that the Pakistani state has signaled an interest in negotiations. The Pakistan Army has, several times, promised safe passage to Baloch rebels in exchange for peace negotiations. Instead of living up to their word, however, our state's security forces arrested and hanged Baloch rebels. One of the more circulated stories is that of 90-year old Nawab Nouroze Khan Zarakzai, the chief of the Zehri tribe, who led a strong guerilla force of 750 to 1000 men. According to the Baloch, the army had promised the abolition of the One Unit Plan, a return of the Khan of Kalat (whom they had arrested), and amnesty to the guerillas. But, when Nouroze Khan returned with his men, they were arrested and his son and five others were hanged on treason charges. The Baloch still memorialize the date of their hanging on July 15th every year. They call it Martyr's Day.

Two years after losing East Pakistan—now Bangladesh—then Prime Minister Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto was set F-14 fighter jets with Irani pilots by the Shah of Iran, Muhammad Reza Shah Pehlavi, to carry out operations in Balochistan. One brigadier, who took part in the 1973 operation in Balochistan, told me that his unit "sprayed bullets on a village to pacify the residents. We never got any trouble from them after that," the brigadier grinned.

Bhutto also dismissed the democratically elected National Awami Party (NAP) government in Balochistan on charges of treason. Some of Balochistan's most influential leaders, including Ghaus Bux Bizenjo, Nawab Khair Bakhsh Marri, Sardar Attaullah Mengal, and Sher Muhammad Marri were tried in the Hyderabad Conspiracy Trial, which lasted from 1975 to 1979.

Today, the Pakistan Army is the primary suspect in the hundreds of tortured and mutilated bodies that have turned up in Balochistan.

This is why the commander of the Balochistan Liberation Front (BLF), Dr. Allah Nazar, has said he appreciates dialogue, but only under the supervision of the United Nations. "Otherwise, we are not going to sit with the state on the negotiation table," says Dr. Nazar. The BLF had earlier demanded that Pakistan ensure the safe passage of international observers across the province for the May 11 elections. Their demands beg the question: Why are rebel groups more willing to trust international organizations than the Pakistani state?

In the last few weeks almost everyone—from Pakistan's politicians to its media organizations, and its liberal activists to its political analysts—has celebrated the coming of a new democratic dawn in Balochistan. The rise of PkMAP's Mehmood Khan Achakzai as Balochistan's governor, and the National Party's (NP) Dr. Abdul Malik Baloch as its chief minister, is a significant and important step forward in the way that the center has dealt with Balochistan.

Yet, the new face of the provincial government's leaders has more to do with a shift in establishment policy than a genuine change in the situation on the ground. Although the reports are difficult to verify, up to 49 Baloch have either gone missing or turned up dead since the May 11 elections. The Pakistan media has been unwilling to accurately report on this issue in the fear that it might undermine Balochistan's newest crop of politicians—a group, of which Pakistan's liberal elite is particularly fond.

This is particularly disconcerting given the reality of voter turnout in Balochistan in the 2013 elections. While Pashtuns in Balochistan turned out in record numbers in Quetta and the northern belt, the Baloch basically "did not vote" according to Malik Siraj Akbar, the editor of The Baloch Hal. Of the 14 provincial assembly seats that were being contested in southern Balochistan—home to the new chief minister as well as the middle-class uprising led by the Balochistan Liberation Front (BLF)—only four constituencies saw an increase in voter turnouts, bringing voter turnout numbers back to 1997 levels. One constituency went from a 43 per cent voter turnout in 2008, to a 1 per cent voter turnout in 2013. In Chief Minister Malik Baloch's own constituency, only 12 per cent turned out to vote, an almost 30 per cent drop from the 2008 elections, when the entire crop of nationalist parties, from the NP to the Balochistan National Party-Mengal (BNP-M) and the PkMAP, had boycotted the elections. If we look at numbers from the 1988 elections onwards, this is the highest drop in voter turnout southern Balochistan has ever seen.

Separatists say that the voter turnout was a direct result of their call for a complete shutter-down strike and boycott of the May 11 election. Dr. Abdul Malik Baloch says that voters felt threatened, and were too afraid to show up and cast their ballot. And, some policy analysts say that the main reason for low turnouts was simple logistics: polling booths are few and far between in the vast expanse of the Balochistan province.

Whatever the real reason is, however, it is fundamentally irrelevant. What is relevant is that the voter turnout numbers among the Baloch reveal the vast gap between the people that we claim are represented by politicians in Quetta, and the new leadership in the provincial government. The fact is that the Pakistani media, politicians and activists choose to ignore clear-cut statistics, that they fail to draw obvious links between what these numbers mean for Quetta and that they continue to turn a blind eye to the dumping of mutilated-beyond-recognition bodies.

For many observers, politics only exists within the confines of the nation state. As a result, only those who have a place in provincial assemblies or the parliament in Islamabad are considered legitimate representatives,. Anyone who falls outside these limits is ignored. Pakistan's mainstream pundits have become so used to mimicking the language of the state that they either forget to include voices from beyond the halls of parliament, or deliberately fail to do so because they are afraid that bringing them into the conversation will undermine the integrity of Pakistani nationalism.

***

Neither of these attacks occurred simply as external forces outside of the state.

Army cantonments occupy around half the city's territory, according to a source from the Frontier Corps (FC). Twenty-seven platoons, or almost 1000 soldiers, from the paramilitary force patrolled the streets alongside the police in 2012. It is near impossible to drive more than 10 minutes before being stopped by a boy in khaki asking for identification; yet, several attacks on the Hazara community have taken place less than 100 meters away from checkpoints, according to Asmatullah Niaz, the chairman of the Hazara Student Federation (HSF).

There are only two possible explanations: either the security forces are incapable or complicit. Interior Minister Nisar himself, seemed to hint at the latter when he recently asked how "Quetta could be the repeated victim of terrorist attacks with police, FC, security and intelligence agencies on every corner."

Niaz says that the security establishment allows militant groups to operate with impunity because it helps divert attention from the widespread separatist uprising that has taken hold among the Baloch. The security establishment sees the LeJ as a strategic asset in an area close to the Afghan border as NATO troops plan to step down their presence next year. According to Ayesha Siddiqa, a leading security analyst, the LeJ and other militant groups were raised during the 1980s and integrated in the security agencies tactical planning as they pursued a policy of resisting India. "These jihadis will disappear the day their creators run out of uses for them," says Siddiqa.

So, the state is complicit in a form of violence aimed at creating sectarian divisions as spectacles at the expense of Pakistanis. In context and ideology, the BLA attack differs from the LeJ attack. The attack on Jinnah's residency is the expression of a subjugated people rather than an attack by an asset of the state.

The BLA issued a press release following its exploit that has received scant or no attention in the Pakistani press. That press release called on "their Pashtun brothers to build a monument in tribute to Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan and Abdul Samad Achakzai." Both Pashtun stalwarts are significant figures in the history of progressive Pakistan. With all of their faults and limitations, these two men are seen as the forefathers of two of Pakistan's most secular and progressive political parties: the Awami National Party (ANP) and the PkMAP. By highlighting them, the BLA underlines a broadly left, secular and importantly anti-colonial history—one with which they associate today. Indeed, the BLA spokesman followed up with a statement that declared that the BLA can only think of negotiations after destroying "the symbols of invaders on Baloch land and regained our national geography and national identity."

The attack on the Ziarat residency, where the BLA replaced the Pakistani flag with their own, is an indirect invitation directed at us: 'See Pakistan from our eyes.' Any negotiation that wishes to be long-lasting needs to do just that: Seeing the history of the state within Balochistan. Indeed, that is what the Baloch recall whenever the Pakistani state approaches the Baloch and its rebels. Even those nationalist leaders that are favorites of Islamabad, like Dr, Abdul Malik Baloch, Akhtar Mengal and Mehmood Khan Achakzai, were raised with narratives of betrayal. The political response that the NP, PkMAP and the BNP-M choose to express might be vastly different from those of the rebels. But most Baloch are well-acquainted with tales of a Pakistan that goes against its own word, and continues to ignore the materiality of the corpses that pile up: parents burying their sons; sisters burying their brothers, and babies made fatherless.

To equate the LeJ and BLA attacks is to see through the eyes of the Pakistani state rather than those it subjugates. When lives are at stake, we must turn that lens back where it belongs: on the state.

Mahvish Ahmad is a journalist and lecturer in political science, and the co-founder of Tanqeed. A shorter version of this article was originally published in The News on Sunday (TNS). The parts that do not appear in TNS are not a result of their editorial policy, but because the writer added, and edited, the article after print.
(Mis)Understanding Balochistan | Tanqeed

 

[maomao]

@Ray Hmmm what I had read was initially Jinnah had accepted Kalat as an independent state but latter detracted and attacked it. The letter shows he was negotiating accession before the attack! Usually statesmen do negotiate first but the attack was sudden and swift!

Few interesting current affairs website on Balochistan:

Baloch Warna: http://balochwarna.com/about-us/

BRA: http://balochrepublicanarmy.com/category/videos/

Baloch Sarmachar: https://baluchsarmachar.wordpress.com/tag/baloch-sarmachar/

Baloch Liberation Voice: http://balochliberationvoice.com/

 

[DingDong]

War is not a solution, it will destroy both countries badly even its horrible impact on the region can not be ruled out, India should stop supporting BLA for their own good.

India must support Baloch and Sindhi independence with all vigour. War with India will destroy Pakistan, India will take care of her losses.

 

[Peter]

War is not a solution, it will destroy both countries badly even its horrible impact on the region can not be ruled out, India should stop supporting BLA for their own good.

Hey you Pakistani, stop being a delusional idiot.

 

[John Baloch]

BLA and UBA have some small issues Baloch Leaders are on Table regarding this matter Pakistan trying its best that baloch people fight each other but This time Baloch people know what to do.

 

[Kshatriya87]

I don't think baloch rebels will give up on their quest for independence. Fight for freedom will never end completely. It might diminish a bit. Sooner or later, balochistan is bound to get independence.