Our Announcements

Not Found

Sorry, but you are looking for something that isn't here.

Posts Tagged Quaid’s Blessing on Balochistan

Muhammad Ali Jinnah, Muslim League and Accession of Princely States

Muhammad Ali Jinnah, Muslim League and Accession of Princely States

 

 

images-4

Quaid-i-Azam(Muhammad Ali Jinnah), Muslim League and the Accession of Princely States

The study of princely States is a fascinating chapter in Indian history and is mainly consisted of confused facts and deviating policies. The areas which come under direct British subjugation were called as British India while the remaining territories entered into the British government through treaties and agreements were known as Indian states.

It is commonly believed that Quaid-i-Azam Jinnah and All India Muslim League had a weak policy towards princely states and thus they are mainly responsible for the mess created in shape of the illogical accession and merger of princely States in India and Pakistan. But let’s analyze the sequence of events which created that mess and then decide was Mr. Jinnah only and solely responsible for it:

The question of political future of some 565 Indian states, ruled by native princes, constituted about one fourth of India’s population, had engaged the serious attention of the British rulers, the Congress and Muslim League leadership. Unfortunately, the widely divergent policy approaches of the three major actors in respect of states’ future created challenging situation for Quaid-i-Azam who was already pre-occupied with more and severe problems arising out of partition. The manner in which the British implemented their laconic policies through Crown Representative Mountbatten, who due to his open conflict with the Quaid and blatant commitment of the proto-Indian Government’s policy, made the Quaid’s task difficult indeed.

The 3rd June Plan was, on purpose, kept ambiguous about the future of the States. It merely affirmed that the British Government’s policy towards Indian states remained as enunciated in the Cabinet Mission’s Memorandum of 12 May 1946, which stipulated that paramountcy would lapse with the withdrawal of the British from India and would in no circumstances be transferred to an Indian government. The void crated by the lapse of paramountcy and the cessation of political and other arrangement s between the states and the British Crown was “to be filled either by the States entering into a federal relationship with the successor government or governments in British India, or failing this , entering into particular political arrangements with it or them”. 1 In their statement of 16 May 1946, the Cabinet Mission pronounced that paramountcy would neither be retained by the British Crown nor transferred to any new government in India. The states, released from the obligations of paramountcy, would work out their own relationship with the succession states, and it by no means followed that such relationship would be identical for all the states. 2

These policy parameters did not define the precise status of the states after the British colonial rule in India had come to an end rather it had confused the whole situation. However, during discussions with the States Negotiating Committee, which comprised the Rulers or their representatives, the Crown Representative observed that, in order that no administrative vacuum might result from the lapse of paramountcy, standstill arrangement would have to be made for the interim period until fresh agreements had been made. He also confirmed that the accession of a State to one or the other Constituent Assembly was a matter of free choice”. 3 But the same Mountbatten only some three months later, in a volte-face urged that the rulers take into account the geographical factor in deciding which dominion to join, so that the balkanization of India be avoided. Moreover, although the right of the states to determine their own future had been conceded by the British Government, Mountbatten chose to go along with the Congress plan to pressure the princes into accession before 15 August 1947.

The policy of Mountbatten was scarcely compatible with the states policy of the British Government. Referring to the deadline of 14 August 1947 that Mountbatten had given the States for accession, Secretary of State Listowel reminded him that his “statement was inconsistent with the thrust of the debate in Parliament on the Indian Independence Bill.” 4

Whereas the States had accepted the British plan for the transfer of power in so far as it concerned them, this was far from true of both the Congress and the Muslim League leadership. At a meeting between Mountbatten and the Indian leaders on 13 June 1947, Nehru reiterated the oft-repeated Congress policy that paramountcy would devolve on the succession states upon the transfer of power. He claimed that the states had no right to declare independence and that the Cabinet Mission’s Memorandum of 12 May 1946 did not permit of this. Jinnah had a legalistic approach towards the states. The British Government policy of not merging the Indian states and retaining their status quo was far beyond any logical justification. The only justification we find is their policy of indirect rule. Now Jinnah had to cope with the legacy, so special care was needed. Jinnah took the view that the States would regain sovereignty with the lapse of paramountcy and their treaties and agreements with the British would cease to be valid until fresh agreements were concluded on a voluntary basis with the Succession states. Nehru had to concede that “he was not intending to lay down that every state must join one or other Constituent Assembly; but if they did not come in, they would have to come to some other arrangement could not and should not be preceded by declaration of independence.” 5

Jinnah reaffirmed that, constitutionally and legally, the states could not be mandated by the British Government to join one Constituent Assembly or the other. If a state wished to come in, he said, it could do so by agreement.

Jinnah’s stand was in conformity with that of the Nawab Hameedullah Khan of Bhopal, Chancellor of the Chamber of Princes, who held that the states should be free to decide which constituent Assembly to join and suggested that the All India Muslim, League (AIML) offer liberal terms for future relationship with Pakistan to those States that might wish to associate with it. The states should be assured that “their sovereignty, integrity and autonomy are in no manner to be jeopardized”. 6 He even resigned as Chancellor and declined to attend the meeting of the States Negotiating Committee called for 25 July 1947 protesting that the Rulers have been invited like the oysters to attend the tea party with the walrus and the carpenter.

A firm believer in constitutional process and political fair play, Jinnah’s statement of 17 June 1947 exhibited his legalistic and constitutional approach. He said that “constitutionally and legally the Indian States will be independent sovereign states on the termination of paramountcy and they will be free to decide for themselves to adopt any course they like. It is open to them to join the Hindustan Constituent Assembly, or the Pakistan Constituent Assembly, or decide to remain independent”. 7

The policy of the All Indian Muslim League, as clarified by Quaid-i-Azam was that “we do no wish to interfere with the internal affairs of any state… Such States as wish to enter the Pakistan Constituent Assembly of their free will and desire to negotiate with us, shall find us ready and willing to do so. If they wish to remain independent and … to negotiate… any political or any other relationship… with Pakistan, we shall be glad to come to settlement which will be in the interest of both”. 8

The Muslim League leadership from the very beginning stood for faithful adherence to the doctrine of non-interference in the affairs of the states which in turn overlook the insidious political developments taking place in states of vital interest to Pakistan like Jammu and Kashmir. Even among the 12 states located within the geographic limits of Pakistan, at least two rulers initially attempted to keep away from Pakistan. Mountbatten quoted in an aid-memoir that “a large state-Kalat-approached the Government of India for political relationship, but was refused; and unofficial overtures from Bahawalpur [for acceding to India] were similarly discouraged”. 9 The Muslim League was not looking into the merits of each of these cases and their political hold over the prospective areas of Pakistan appeared to be loose.

The Muslim, League had admittedly no political ambition as far as Hyderabad was concerned except for maintaining centuries’ old culture and religious bonds existing between the States’ Muslims and Pakistan.

On the contrary the Congress had taken a lead in extending its political influence in the princely states. It actively helped to establish the All-India States Peoples’ Conference in 1927. During 1928-46, the Congress leadership worked for establishment of representative institutions in the states and lent active support for their legitimate and peaceful struggle for responsible government.

By 1946, the Congress was successful in establishing a strong political hold and propagated for majority rule for the states’ people. Its resolution of 15 June 1947 stood for a comprehensive political framework in respect of the states which did not concede the right of any state in India to independence and to live in isolation from the rest of India. All states had to accede to one or the other Dominion in respect of only three subjects like Defence, External Affairs and Communications. Nehru had apprehension about the “balkanisation of India” if the States were allowed to opt for independence following the lapse of paramountcy. He urged that administrative and other arrangements concerning matters of common interest, especially in the economic and fiscal spheres, be made in time. 10

In the course of negotiations between the British Government and the Rulers of the States, the Congress leaders, Nehru and Patel, adopted a stance based on intimidation and coercion of the Rulers as well as resorting to clandestine and crafty dealings. On 9 April 1947, speaking at Gwalior as President of the States’ People’s Conference, Nehru threatened the Rulers to join the Indian Constituent Assembly or be treated as hostile. 11 On 5 July Patel invited the Rulers and the people to the Constituent Assembly in a spirit of friendly cooperation. The states, he warned, should “bear in mind that the alternative of cooperation in the general interest is anarchy and chaos which will overwhelm great and small in common ruin if we are unable to act together in the minimum common tasks.” 12 Patel told Mountbatten, in discussing on the future of the States that “he need not bother about the States because after the transfer of power the States’ peoples would rise, depose their Rulers and throw in their lot with the Congress.” 13 Such was the attitude of the Congress; they wanted to grab as many states as they can no matter with fraud, violence or intimidation. The Indian Government had criticized the accession of Junagadh to Pakistan but were not ready to handover Kashmir to its people even Nehru once wrote, before partition, in a letter to the Maharaja that “the idea of accession of Kashmir to Pakistan is hateful to me. I want to do anything that is reasonably possible to prevent its accession to Pakistan.” 14

Conrad Corfield, Political Adviser to Mountbatten, a man with a strong sense of duty and moral obligation, believed that the States would act in concert in asserting their “theoretical” right to independence. He held the view that the states should not sign anything before the transfer of power and lapse of paramountcy. At that point, he thought, they would be free as independent entities to act in unison and even dictate the terms of any merger with India. Mountbatten, however, was opposed to this approach because of the Congress pressure. Corfield had flown to London with Ismay in May 1947 to seek direct support from the India Office. His trip, without Mountbatten’s consent, provoked the Viceroy to dub his Political Adviser as a “son of a bitch”. 15

H. V. Hodson, a Constitutional Advisor to Viceroy Linlithgow, in his book the Great Divide mentions of a deal between Mountbatten and Sardar Patel on States’ accession to India at all costs. Patel is quoted to have told Mountbatten; “I will buy a basket of 565 apples”, the computed number of states-but if there are even two or three apples missing, the deal is off”. Mountbatten responded: “if I give you a basket with, say, 560 apples, will you buy it?” Patel replied “I might”. 16 The bargain was struck and the ostensible reward was the assurance of Governor Generalship of independent India.

In open opposition to Jinnah, Mountbatten actively prevented the accession of 5 Kathiawar States namely Dasuda, Vanod, Jainabad, Bajuna and Radha to Pakistan. Each of these states had a Muslim ruler who requested for union with Pakistan. In the case of Junagadh, Manavadar and Mangrol, which had acceded to Pakistan, India ordered military action in September 1947, which culminated in their forceful annexation on 9 November 1947. Four months later, Mountbatten justified the illegal military action against Junagadh, in an aide-memoire to the King of England. He maligned Jinnah in accepting accession of the State, aimed at “deliberately teasing the Government of India into taking precipitous and aggressive action.” 17 He accused Jinnah of launching a wider campaign in which Pakistan appeared as the innocent small nation, the victim of aggressive designs of its large, bullying neighbor. Mountbatten boasted that the accession exercise was a convenient bargaining counter for Pakistan vis-à-vis Kashmir. “When I saw Mr. Jinnah at Lahore on 1 November,” Mountbatten informed his King, “he gave me his view that there was no sense in having Junagadh in the Dominion of Pakistan, and that he had been most averse to accepting this accession. He had in fact demurred for long but had finally given way to the insistent appeals of the Nawab and his Dewan”. 18Both the views are an apparent contradiction in the first instance and an insult to the sagacity and wisdom of the great Muslim statesman that Jinnah was, on the other. Jinnah has long been criticized for his acceptance of accession of Junagadh State to Pakistan. Actually it was in conformity with League policy of giving right to states to decide their political future. Not only the Muslim League but the British Government had assured them of this option but with certain ambiguities and contradiction and later the same advocate of free will i.e. Mountbatten, broke his previous promises. 

The case of the Rajasthan Hindu States of Jodhapur, Jaisalmer and Bikancer, contiguous to Pakistan, who favoured independence and accession to Pakistan in accordance with the ground rules provided by the British Government, is proof how Mountbatten cajoled and threatened them into submission by joining India. According to Hodson, Jinnah had offered Jodhpur the use of Karachi as a free port, free import of arms, jurisdiction over Jodhpur-Hyderabad Sindh railway and a large supply of food grains for famine-struck state population.

Bhopal, Indore and Travancore, influenced by Jinnah’s political stance on States’ future stood for independence, as against acceding to India or Pakistan. Mountbatten talked them with deceit intimidation and got them into the Indian fold. According to the Viceroy’s personal Report No. 15 of 1st August, the “adherence of Travancore after all C.P [Ramaswamy Aiyar] declarations of independence has had a profound effect on all the other states and is sure to shake the Nizam”. 19

Accession of Kashmir is the best example of Congress deviation and contradiction of their stance of representative and responsible government. Following partition, Jinnah had to confront the Indo-British conspiracy with the Maharaja of Kashmir as a pawn, and the anti-Pakistan National Conference of Sheikh Abdullah as perpetrators. According to reports filed by Charles W., Charge d’Affaires at U.S Embassy in Delhi with his State Department in October-November 1947, “that Maharaja had been intending to bring his state into the Indian Union…but at all costs to prevent it from adhering to Pakistan.” 20 The ruler demonstrated open partially towards National Conference and other pro-India elements with a view to “faking popular support for an anti-democratic decision amounting to the political murder of the state’s majority community.” 21 Nehru’s anxiety over Kashmir is evident from a letter he wrote to the Maharaja on 12 December 1947: “I have an intimate and personal interest in it and the mere thought that Kashmir joins Pakistan and become a part of foreign territory for us is hateful to me. I want to do everything that is reasonably possible to prevent it”. 22 He had been directing Sardar Patel for arranging accession of Kashmir “as rapidly as possible.”

The final act of the conspiracy was therefore initiated by the Maharaja by letting loose a reign of terror against the pro-Pakistan Muslim Conference and their Muslim supporters and by hurling baseless charges of infiltration of Pakistani nationals in his state. Pakistan made repeated attempts to defuse the alarming political situation by mutual discussions. In return Maharaja sent an ultimatum to Pakistan to invite external help to solve the problem. Jinnah wrote back: “the real aim of your Government policy is to seek an opportunity to join the Indian Union as a coup d’etat.” 23 He advised the Maharaja to depute his Prime Minister to discuss all contentious issues. Earlier, a Pakistan representative sent to Srinagar with peace proposals had been turned away by Kashmir Prime Minister.

Eventually, on 27 October 1947, Indian troops marched into Kashmir after getting the Maharaja to sign the instrument of accession in a dubious manner. Pakistan declared that the accession was predicated on fraud and violence. On 1 November 1947, Jinnah told Mountbatten at a Lahore meeting that he felt from beginning to end this was a deliberate, long worked out, deep laid plot to secure Kashmir’s permanent accession. 24

Mountbatten sharply reacted to these statements as did the Indian leadership at Delhi. He somewhat scolded Jinnah by terming these as “unstateman-like, inept and bad mannered”. It was like a conspirator reprimanding the victim of the conspiracy. In contrast, one finds him arguing before his Kings, in February 1948, with no scruple of conspiracy that “from the strategic and economic point of view… while Pakistan had no interest in Junagadh, India has considerable interest in Kashmir.” 25 It was scarcely surprising that Mountbatten persuaded the King to believe that India had put no pressure to bear on the Maharaja to cause him to accede, even though there is overwhelming evidence that India had done all the dirty work to force the Maharaja into accession.

Another problem which the nascent country faced was the accession of Kalat to Pakistan. The British Government had given more autonomy and independence to Kalat through their treaties of 1841, 1854 and 1876. The khanate were power drunken. They were literally Kings of Kalat through Sandeman System of administration and the privileges granted to them by the British Government due to the geo-strategic location of the state. Now Quaid-i-Azam had to cope with that mindset of Kalat and it was not easy for him to topple down the state and merge it with Pakistan with just a stroke of pen. So tact was required and that was what Quaid-i-Azam did.

Jinnah had problems in dealing with his friend, the Khan of Kalat, who claimed independent sovereign status for his State. In the negotiations held on 19 July 1947, with Crown Representative Mountbatten in chair, who stated that on the lapse of paramountcy “states would de jure become independent; but de facto, very few were likely to benefit… that although Kalat would have gained freedom, no practical course other than some from of association with Pakistan was open to it.” 26 On 11 August 1947, Jinnah recognized Kalat as independent sovereign state in treaty relationship with British Government, with a status different from that of Indian states, although the British Government had earlier disallowed the Kalat’s position other than an Indian state.

It is surprising that even though the Indian Independence Act 1947 did not give the option of independence to any Indian state, Pakistan conceded such a status to Kalat. This position was incompatible with the policy adopted towards all the states and resulted subsequently in strained relationship and conflict between Pakistan and Kalat. Britain also objected to this policy and advised against recognition to the State as a separate international entity. Jinnah was anxious to complete the formalities of accession which the Khan of Kalat promised to complete shortly. Not favorably disposed towards accession to Pakistan; the Khan stood for establishment of relations on a treaty basis and took several unwelcome steps to press his demand through his state assembly. Jinnah took a dim view of his “most disappointing and unsatisfactory” attitude. The six-month delay in the completion of legal formalities taxed his patience, and on 27 March 1948, he instructed Foreign Secretary Ikramullah that “there should be no negotiations of any kind or any further discussion to create slightest impression that anything but accession is possible”. 27A.S.B. Shah, a Joint Secretary in the Foreign Office, and Ambrose Dundas, Agent to the Governor-General of Balochistan, were also asked to make it clear to Kalat to give us his answer whether he is prepared to accede as promised by him more than once or not”. While these developments were going on, the All India Radio broadcasted accession of Kalat to India. Khan of Kalat retaliated and somewhat dramatically decided to accede to Pakistan since Las Bela, Kharan and Mekran had already acceded to Pakistan on 17 March 1948.

We can conclude that Jinnah was not solely and only responsible for what had happened in respect of its accession. Policy of Jinnah and AIML from the very beginning was of non-intervention and favoring maximum autonomy and sovereignty for the states. Though the policy of Muslim League and Jinnah, regarding princely states, had certain discrepancies and weakness but whatever it was; they stood firm on it. On the contrary British Government and Indian National Congress changed their stances from time to time. Let the readers decide for themselves who was right and who was wrong. Let this issue be discussed and debated so that the truth may come to surface.

References

1 Z. H. Zaidi, ed., Jinnah Papers: The States Historical and Policy Perspectives and Accession to Pakistan, Islamabad: Quaid-i-Azam Papers Project, 2003, p.7.
2 Statement by Stafford Cripps, 16 May 1946. Mansergh, ed., The Transfer of Power, Vol. VII, p. 597.
3 F. 2/27-33, Quaid-i-Azam Papers, Islamabad: National Archives of Pakistan.
4 Mansergh, ed., The Transfer of Power, Vol. XII, pp. 459-61.
5 Z. H. Zaidi, Op. cit., p.15.
6 Ibid., p.12.
7 Waheed Ahmad, ed., The Nation’s Voice; Achieving the Goal, Vol. VI, Karachi, 2002, 212-4.
8 Ibid.
9 Z. H. Zaidi, Op. cit., p. 403.
10 F. 200/143, Mountbatten Papers, Islamabad.
11 H. V. Hodson, The Great Divide: Britain-India Pakistan, Karachi, 1985, p. 358.
12 Z. H. Zaidi, Op. cit., p. 38.
13 Hodson, Op. cit., p. 367.
14 S. Gopal, Selected Works of Jawaharlal Nehru, Vol. IV, New Delhi, 1987, p. 373.
15 Patrick French, Liberty or Death: India’s Journey to Independence and Division, London, 1997, p. 311.
16 Hodson, Op. cit., pp. 367-8.
17 Zaidi, Op. cit., p. 405.
18 Ibid., p. 407.
19 Hodson, Op. cit., p. 378.
20 Z.H. Zaidi, Jinnah Papers: The States: Hyderabad, Jammu and Kashmir, Vol. IX, Islamabad: Quaid-i-Azam Papers Project, 2003, p. 298.
21 F. 845.00/11-447, US National Archives.
22 S. Gopal, Op. cit., p. 373.
23 Zaidi, Op. cit., Vol. IX, p. 277.
24 Durga Das, ed., Sardar Patel’s Correspondence (1945-50): New Light on Kashmir, Vol. I, Ahmedabad, 1971, pp. 73-81.
25 Ibid.
26 Zaidi, Op. cit, Vol. VIII, p. 137.
27 Ibid., p. 184.

(archived from http://www.jinnaharchive.com/articles/accprincestates3.htm)

, ,

No Comments

DR ISRAR AHMED QUAID E AZAM AUR ALLAMA IQBAL KA NAZRIYA-E- PAKISTAN: QUAID-E-AZAM TURNED A DREAM INTO A REALITY


 Unknown-42Jinnah’s reply will give you some idea of his disillusionment. ‘Hindus are incorrigible,’ he told Ikram. ‘And the thing with Muslims is that their biggest and tallest leader who talks with me in the morning goes to the commissioner or deputy commissioner or governor in the evening and spills all the beans. How can I lead such a community?’”

The animosity shown by the Hindus to the Muslim and their own experience of two-and-a-half year Congress rule strengthened the Muslims belief in their separate nationality. The discriminatory attitude coupled with attempts by the Hindu dominated Congress to suppress the Muslims impelled the Muslims to finally demand a separate sovereign state for the Muslims.

images-26

Has any thing changed, after almost 70 year, the prophetic words of Quaid-e-Azam?

 

 

  This is an interview by the Arab News back in 2006 with Dr Israr Ahmed – some very pertinent points are raised. Something we all have been discussing about people being responsible for their state of affairs not just the politicians.

Dr. Israr Ahmad is known for his excellent analysis of the Qur’an in Urdu. He appears regularly on PTV, QTV and Peace TV providing critical explanations of the holy verses. He was originally associated with Maulana Abul Ala Maududi, the founding father of the Jamaat-e-Islami. He was even more closer to the legendary Maulana Ameen Ahsan Islahi, the author of the monumental analysis of the Qur’an entitled “Tadabbur Al-Qur’an.” Dr. Israr drew inspiration from his mentor, Maulana Islahi.

Maulana Islahi was also associated with Maulana Maududi. When there were differences between Maulana Maududi and Maulana Islahi and many other leading scholars of the time on the issue of whether the Jamaat should dabble in politics, Maulana Islahi parted ways with Maulana Maududi. Dr. Israr followed his mentor and dissociated himself from the Jamaat and Maulana Maududi in the late 1950s. Maulana Islahi and Dr. Israr were of the opinion that reforming society should take precedence over politics.

Maulana Islahi also edited the respected Islamic journal “Misaq,” which is still published from Lahore. In a special issue of the journal, Dr. Israr’s biography was published.

Dr. Israr completed his graduate degree in medicine (MBBS) from Lahore’s King Edward Medical College in 1954. He gave up his medical practice in 1970 and since then has devoted his life for the study and teaching of the Holy Qur’an.

Dr. Israr was in Jeddah last week and Arab News sat down with him for a discussion on the current state of affairs in Pakistan. Now in his 70s, Dr. Israr seemed very disillusioned and pessimistic. In his younger days he was very active in politics having been the president of the Jamiat-ul-Tulba, but it is politics that now disturbs him.

“I am upset with this vicious cycle, or what I call this three-sided prism of military democracy, civil bureaucracy and feudal lords,” Dr. Israr said. “They take turns at power. Sometimes the military takes charge, and the other two follow it; at other times the bureaucracy takes over, and the remaining two follow suit. Their interests are intertwined.”

Dr. Israr described the situation. “When Ayub Khan took over everybody joined hands against him,” he said. “At that time, it was believed that Ayub was the source of all evil and that immediately after his removal, things would be hunky-dory. When Ayub left, Yahya Khan took over. When Yahya left Zulfikar Ali Bhutto assumed power. Then all the religious parties came together to oust him. Then Zia-ul Haq took over. So democracy could never take root.”

The scholar said Pakistan has been thus plagued since its beginnings. “The party that was responsible for the country’s creation — the Muslim League — was in fact not a party. It was a ‘tehreek’ (movement). And as with all movements when it achieves its goal, it folds up. The Muslim League that created Pakistan died immediately after achieving its sole purpose.”

When asked about military interventions interrupting the flow of the political process, Dr. Israr said they were due in large part to the weakness of Pakistan’s political system. “If the political traditions were strong, the military would never have dared to intervene. Why didn’t the military intervene in India? Is it a small army? Morarji Desai (the former prime minister of India) was once visiting Pakistan. He was traveling by train from Lahore to Karachi. As was mandatory, the DIG in Rahim Yar Khan area was accompanying him in the train’s coupe. So he asked him why the Indian military never intervened in his country’s political affairs. Desai replied that the Indian military knew full well that if martial law were to be imposed, there would be thousands of bodies littering the streets of India, and one of them would be that of Morarji Desai.”

Dr. Israr said the ongoing political upheaval in Pakistan damaged the nation’s respect among its neighbors and the world community. “We became a laughing stock with the frequent changes in governments. So much so that (Jawaharlal) Nehru (India’s first prime minister) once said sarcastically: ‘People keep pestering me to hold dialogue with the Pakistani leadership. My question to them is: Who should I talk to? I don’t change my clothes as frequently as they change governments in Pakistan.’ It is very easy to blame the military establishment, but one should also be asking who gave it the reason to intervene? It was the ineptitude of the political leadership. There were elements in the political class that were ready to welcome the military rulers with garlands. If the military had felt that the people would not like its intervention in the country’s political affairs, then it would have hesitated; it would have thought twice.”

Now Dr. Israr finds a disturbing portent for the future of Pakistan. “I am worried. The reasons why Pakistan was created (‘wajh-e-jawaaz’), its raison d’etre, are being questioned now. This worries me. ‘Why Pakistan?’ the younger generation keeps asking. It is becoming a chorus now. ‘Why did you go for partition?’ they ask. ‘What was the reason?’ Is that not a worrying factor?”

Dr. Israr elaborated. “There were two reasons (for the creation of Pakistan) — one positive and one negative. The negative factor was the fear of the Hindu: the Hindu will finish us off; the Hindu will suppress us (‘Hindu hum ko dabayega,’ ‘Hindu hum ko kha jayega’… etc., etc.) The Hindu will take revenge. It will finish our culture. It will strangle our language. This was the negative issue that became a rallying cry for the Muslim League. Remember, at this stage the Muslim League was not a party. It was just a club of nawabs and jagirdars. In his address of 1930 in Allahabad (‘Khutba-e-Allahabad’), the legendary poet Iqbal gave an ideological injection to this movement. During the address, Iqbal said: ‘It is my conviction that in the north of India an independent Muslim state will be established.’ It was a prophesy — not a proposal. Iqbal went on to say: ‘If this happens, we will be able to project the true picture of Islam to the world.’ This was the positive reason. One year before 1930 Mr. Muhammad Ali Jinnah … I am not calling him Quaid-e-Azam because he had not yet become the ‘quaid’. He was not among the founders of the Muslim League. And for six years after the founding of the Muslim League he didn’t join it. He was the private secretary of (the Indian independence hero) Dadabhai Nawroji. Even when he eventually became a member of the Muslim League, he retained dual membership — both in the Congress and the Muslim League. He did his best (‘sartod koshish ki’) to find some solution to the Hindu-Muslim problem. That is why Mr. Jinnah was referred to in those days as the ambassador of unity. Then he became disillusioned. So in 1929 one year before Iqbal’s ‘Khutba-e-Allahabad,’ Mr. Jinnah closed his political shop, bought a palace (‘kothi’) in London and started practicing law. S.M. Ikram, who wrote some interesting books in Urdu, was in England in those days studying at Oxford. He went to see Jinnah and asked him why he had left India. ‘The Muslims of India need your leadership,’ he told Jinnah. Jinnah’s reply will give you some idea of his disillusionment. ‘Hindus are incorrigible,’ he told Ikram. ‘And the thing with Muslims is that their biggest and tallest leader who talks with me in the morning goes to the commissioner or deputy commissioner or governor in the evening and spills all the beans. How can I lead such a community?’”

The turnaround in Jinnah, according to Dr. Israr, came later. “It happened in 1932 when Iqbal went to London for the Second Roundtable Conference. At that time, he gave the same ideological injection to Mr. Jinnah. ‘This is the cause of the Muslims,’ he told Mr. Jinnah. It was this injection that Mr. Jinnah came back with to India in 1934. He was rejuvenated, and then he became the Quaid-e-Azam.”

When Dr. Israr thinks back to the creation of Pakistan, he marvels over the consensus that formed it. “It was a miracle. Can there be any bigger stupidity from the political standpoint as to why a UP Muslim should support the Muslim League? It was an emotional atmosphere. Bombay Muslim, Madrasi Muslim, CP (Central Provinces) Muslim — what did they have to do with Pakistan? But they were the real creators of Pakistan. In Punjab, there was never a Muslim League ministry even for one day. It was either in East Pakistan or Sindh. Until the end, it was the Congress ministry in the North West Frontier Province (NWFP). The real creators of Pakistan then were the Muslims of the minority provinces. They generated a wave in 1946. It was because of this wave that when the elections took place, they established beyond a shadow of doubt that the Muslim League was the sole representative party of the Muslim community.”

Dr. Israr said that what started right, soon went wrong. “The creation of Pakistan was a good thing. It was created with good intentions; there was a long historical background to the movement, but we failed badly. There is one quote from Quaid-e-Azam worth remembering: ‘God has given us a golden opportunity to prove our worth as architects of a new state, and let it not be said that we didn’t prove equal to the task.’ Unfortunately, we proved that we were not equal to the task.” Where is Pakistan? We divided it into two countries (in 1971). What do we have now? There is no such thing as ‘qaum’ in Pakistan. ‘Qaumiyaten basti hain.’”

The Islamic scholar was asked if his view was similar to the American view which considers Pakistan a failed state. “I don’t know what the Americans are saying. When they say Pakistan is a failed state, maybe they are referring to the country’s failed economic policies. I am talking about the ideological failure. Pakistan was not an ordinary country. It came into existence on the basis of an ideology. If you couldn’t take care of that ideology, then it is a failed state. It is an ideologically failed state.”

When asked if Pakistan’s nuclear leadership of the Muslim world qualified it as having some measure of success, Dr. Israr dismissed the idea out of hand. “What is the use? Just one phone call — ‘with us or against us’ — and you are finished,” he said, noting that it wasn’t just a failure of leadership but rather the failure of personal conviction of the populace. “A country is known by its leader,” he said, “and then what about the people? What did they do? Don’t just blame the leader; the people are equally responsible for the sad state of affairs. Paisa imaan hai, paisa deen hai. Except for materialism, people are not interested in anything. This is not the case of one or two people; I am talking about everybody in Pakistan. They have become too materialistic.”

Published in Arab News on Saturday, September 9, 2006

Quaid-e-Azam turned a dream into a reality

  
ON March 23, 1940, the Muslims of the sub-continent resolved to create a separate homeland, Pakistan. The decision was neither taken in haste nor precipitated by a sudden, dramatic turn of events.
 
Hindus and Muslims had lived in India for centuries but had remained two distinctly different cultural entities presenting marked dissimilarities that neither time nor assimilation could erase; they were like two streams running a parallel course. So manifest and so profound were the differences that the London Times, commenting on the Government of India Act of 1935, had to ungrudgingly concede:
 “Undoubtedly the difference between the Hindus and Muslims is not of religion in the strict sense of the word but also of laws and culture, that they may be said indeed to represent two entirely distinct and separate civilizations.”
 
This incontrovertible realization found a more convincing elucidation in the words of Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah: 
“Notwithstanding thousand years of close contact, nationalities which are as divergent today as ever, cannot at any time be expected to transform themselves into one nation merely by mean of subjecting them to a democratic constitution and holding them forcibly together by unnatural and artificial methods of British Parliamentary Statutes.”
The background of Pakistan Resolution is such that in 1937, provincial autonomy was introduced in the sub-continent under the Government of India Act, 1935. The elections of 1937 provided the Congress with a majority in six provinces, where Congress governments were formed. This led to the political, social, economic and cultural suppression of the Muslims in the Congress ruled provinces.
 
The Congress contemptuously rejected the Muslim League’s offer of forming coalition ministries. The Muslims were subjected not only to physical attacks but injustice and discriminatory treatment as regards civil liberties, economic measures and employment and educational opportunities. The Congress Ministries introduced the Wardha scheme of education, the object of which was to “de- Muslimize” the Muslim youth and children.
 
Ian Stephens, former editor of the newspaper “Statesman” and an eyewitness to the working of the Congress Ministries, says: 
“The effect of this simultaneously on many Muslim minds was of a lightning flash.”
“What had before been but guessed at now leap forth in horridly clear outline. The Congress, a Hindi-dominated body, was bent on the eventual absorption; Western-style majority rule?, in an undivided sub- continent, could only mean the smaller community being swallowed by the larger.”
 
The animosity shown by the Hindus to the Muslim and their own experience of two-and-a-half year Congress rule strengthened the Muslims belief in their separate nationality. The discriminatory attitude coupled with attempts by the Hindu dominated Congress to suppress the Muslims impelled the Muslims to finally demand a separate sovereign state for the Muslims.
 
However, the Muslim demand was violently opposed both by the British and the Hindus; and the Congress attitude toward the Muslims led to the hardening of the Muslims belief that only a separate homeland — Pakistan — can guarantee their freedom. This demand was put in black and white on March 23, 1940.
 
However the path to independence and separate nationhood was strewn with a multiplying myriad of problems. First and foremost was the claim to nationhood vehemently contested by the Congress stalwarts and their supporters. How could a community of converts claim itself to be a nation? Gandhiji posed the question as he ridiculed the Muslim League’s claim to independent nationhood. The Quaid was quick to furnish the answer: 
 
“Mussalmans are a nation according to any definition of a nation, and they must have their homeland, their territory and their state…”
 
“The Hindus and Muslims belong to two different religious philosophies, social customs, literature. They neither intermarry, nor interdine together and, indeed they belong to two different civilizations, which are based mainly on conflicting ideas and conceptions. Their aspects on life and of life are different. It is quite clear that Hindus and Mussalmans derive their inspiration from different sources of history. They have different epics, different heroes and different episodes. Very often the hero of one is a foe of the other and, likewise their victories and defeats overlap. To yoke together two such nations under a single state, one as a numerical minority and the other as a majority, must lead to growing discontent and final destruction of any fabric that may be so built up for the government of such a state…”
 
After adoption of the Pakistan Resolution, Quaid-e-Azam had a clear objective before him and he struggled hard to achieve it. In one of the meetings, he said: 
 
“We are a Nation of a hundred million and what is more, we are a Nation with our distinct culture and civilization, language and literature, art and architecture, legal laws and moral codes, customs and calendar, history and traditions, aptitudes and ambitions. In short, as Muslims we have our own distinctive outlook on life.”
 
He further said that by all cannons of international laws, we are a nation.
 
In 1945, Quaid-e-Azam proclaimed that only Muslim League represented the Muslims, and proved it to the hilt during 1946 polls, winning 100 percent seats at the Centre, and 80 per cent in the provinces. Nothing could have been more conclusive to shatter the Congress claim of being a national body. If the British had read the writing on the wall in this verdict, Pakistan could have come into existence two years earlier without bloodshed. With his charismatic personality Quaid-e-Azam turned the dream of a separate homeland into reality on 14th of August 1947.
 
Thanks to the Quaid’s unwavering leadership and untiring efforts, Pakistan was transformed from an ideal into a reality in a short span of time. In 1947, seven years after the passage of the historic Pakistan Day Resolution at Lahore, the world witnessed the emergence of the largest Muslim state
 

, , , , , , , , ,

No Comments

BLA Supported By US, India, and Israel

images-31

 

The Destabilization of Pakistan: Finding Clarity in the Baluchistan Conundrum

Global Research, April 24, 2009
Axis of Logic 23 April 2009
Region: 
 
 

 
 
The Destabilization of Pakistan: Finding Clarity in the Baluchistan Conundrum

As in all of his analyses of the battle for Pakistan, Talha Mujaddidi provides a rare look into the internal struggle of the Pakistan people and the interference in their domestic affairs by the United States, India and other foreign elements. For those who are unfamiliar with the terms, places and names in this report, Talha provides a glossary at the end of the article. It is especially important that we learn and understand what is happening in Pakistan as Washington is opening up a new front in this country in their “war on terror”. – Les Blough, Axis of Logic Editor

 

(Source: PNAC)

 

April 23, 2009 

Excerpt: “The problem for US is that BLA alone is not able to break away Baluchistan from Pakistan. Of the 5% population of Baluchistan they don’t even have support of 10% Balochi population. The Pakistan Army and ISI are resisting the assault in national and strategic interests of Pakistan. The Great Game of Brzezinski will surely continue in Baluchistan and rest of Pakistan, the people of Pakistan are ready to counter this great game now we need leadership and some courage. It will take some time to achieve courage and leadership but it will come eventually. Street revolutions are easy to carry out the hard part is the mental revolution. That is what is required right now to challenge the US global hegemony.” 

Baluchistan is strategically located East of Iran and to the South of Afghanistan. It has a port at Gwadar that was built by China. Gwadar lies at the opening of Strait of Hormuz. Baluchistan has huge quantities of natural gas, and unexplored oil reserves. More importantly US wants to control the port of Gwadar, and eventually start their dream oil pipeline from Central Asia, through Afghanistan into Baluchistan and Gwadar. Baluchistan is the largest province of Pakistan in terms of area and it covers almost 48% of Pakistan’s area. But its population accounts for only 5% of the total population of Pakistan. Ethnically Baluchistan is divided into Balochs, and Pathans, followed by other small minorities. The state capital is Quetta, (recently termed as nerve center of Taliban by US Generals).

Like all histories in South Asia, or Middle East, the history of Baluchistan is long, complex, and would require a long article to cover all the details. So a brief synopsis is sufficient to get us rolling before we come to the point.

“Baluchistan has the worst human rights record out of all the provinces of Pakistan.”Baluchistan like, Afghanistan and Tribal Areas of Pakistan is a tribal society. Many different Sardars (tribal chiefs), rule their respective tribes, often with serious disregard for human rights. Development wise, Baluchistan is the most backward province in Pakistan. There may be some weight in the argument that the federal government in Pakistan has neglected the development of Baluchistan, but equal responsibility lies with the Sardars of Baluchistan who enjoy immense power in their tribes. They are unwilling to come into the main stream society, have monopoly over the laws and regulations of the state, while they themselves sit in provincial and national parliaments, yet they don’t work for the development of their own people.

Baluchistan has the worst human rights record out of all the provinces of Pakistan. Every time horrific human rights atrocities are committed in Baluchistan tribal chiefs defend the abuses by claiming them to be part of their tribal cultural norms. Since the independence of Pakistan, most of the tribes have accepted Pakistan as their homeland and have tried to come into the mainstream Pakistani society. But Bugti and Marri tribal leaders have always been a source of trouble for Pakistan. Currently Brahamdagh Bugti (grandson of former Bugti tribe leader and former chief minister of Baluchistan, Nawab Akbar Bugti5 is the leader of a runaway terrorist group, the Baloch Liberation Army (BLA)4 operating out of Kandhar, Afghanistan. Before Brahamdagh, Balach Marri, son of Nawab Khair Baksh Marri, was leader of BLA, and he was killed in Afghanistan in 2007.  

Covert Operations against Pakistan 

A new dirty game of geo-politics has already started in Baluchistan, Pakistan. To understand the recent wave of violence in Baluchistan we must understand the vested interests in Baluchistan. The root cause of violence in Baluchistan is not internal poverty or lack of development but the covert operations of foreign intelligence agencies. Internal issues might act as catalysts to inflame the situation but the root cause is foreign interference in internal affairs of Baluchistan. The main group responsible for violence in Baluchistan is the BLA4. Chief of the BLA Brahamdagh Bugti, in his recent interview with Pakistani news channel AAJ TVm declared that he will attack and kill non Baloch population of Baluchistan. In other words he threatened killing of innocent Pakistani civilians on ethnic lines. This is just taking words out of Col Ralph Peter’s plan for balkanization of Pakistan, along the lines of Yugoslavia (June 2006 issue of The Armed Forces Journal). Bugti also asked for support of India and other powers to help him break away Pakistan’s Baluchistan. (For related news read two of my older articles on Axis of Logic, Playing with Fire in Pakistan, – and Now or Never. Pakistan must change its policy in war on terror).

According to Global Research scholar, Michel Chossudovsky

“In the current geopolitical context, the separatist movement is in the process of being hijacked by foreign powers. British intelligence is allegedly providing covert support to Baluchistan separatists (which from the outset have been repressed by Pakistan’s military). In June 2006, Pakistan’s Senate Committee on Defense accused British intelligence of “abetting the insurgency in the province bordering Iran” [Baluchistan]..(Press Trust of India, 9 August 2006). Ten British MPs were involved in a closed door session of the Senate Committee on Defense regarding the alleged support of Britain’s Secret Service to Baloch separatists (Ibid). Also of relevance are reports of CIA and Mossad support to Baloch rebels in Iran and Southern Afghanistan.”

 In a 2006 research article on Baluchistan which was published in Pak Tribune in 2006, Farzana Shah, a current affairs analyst for BrassTacks, a think tank based in Islamabad, highlighted the role which is being played by a British think tank against Baluchistan. Shah writes,  

“In this regard the Foreign Policy Centre (FPC) United Kingdom arranged a seminar on Baluchistan province of Pakistan in collaboration with the so-called Baluchistan Rights Movement on 27th June 2006 in the House of Commons, London. It was highly disappointing as it was abashedly a one-sided cheap propaganda rather than discussing the real situation. By a mere look at the panel of the participants of the seminar one could easily figure out that it consisted of only anti-Pakistan elements and some self-styled activists advocating terrorism in the province. There were no representatives from government of Pakistan or even from the elected provincial government of Baluchistan in the seminar. It is just unfortunate that the Foreign Policy Centre which is expected to present fair suggestions to the British government to engage a country of their concern for important issues, indulged in such a blatant one-sided propaganda against Pakistan through the said seminar.” 

Shah also points out in the article how a Government of Baluchistan is setup in exile in Jerusalem, Israel. She gives the details in her article.

 

Two Indian assets: Brahamdagh Bugti & Balach Marri (R). Marri died in an ambush in 2007 while crossing from Afghanistan to Pakistan after meeting his sponsors there.
The question is, what is the role of US, Afghanistan, India, and Iran in Baluchistan quagmire and what is at stake for these countries?  

Afghanistan 

Afghanistan’s soil has been used again and again to cause trouble inside Pakistan.”Afghanistan was the only country that did not welcome Pakistan in 1947 at the time of our independence. The only time when there was no trouble inside Pakistan from Afghanistan was during the time of Taliban rule in Afghanistan. Taliban being Pukhtoon cleaned Afghanistan of Indian and Iranian assets (both India and Iran supports Northern Alliance, which is in government right now in Afghanistan). Afghanistan’s soil has been used again and again to cause trouble inside Pakistan. Currently BLA is operating from Kandahar, Afghanistan. BLA enjoys support from Indian RAW in terms of finances, logistics, and weapons. Recent report of Foreign Affairs, by Christine Fair of RAND Corporation gives us the inside.

“Having visited the Indian mission in Zahedan, Iran, I can assure you they are not issuing visas as the main activity! Moreover, India has run operations from its mission in Mazar, Afghanistan (through which it supported the Northern Alliance) and is likely doing so from the other consulates it has reopened in Jalalabad and Qandahar along the border. Indian officials have told me privately that they are pumping money into Baluchistan. Kabul has encouraged India to engage in provocative activities such as using the Border Roads Organization to build sensitive parts of the Ring Road and use the Indo-Tibetan police force for security. It is also building schools on a sensitive part of the border in Kunar–across from Bajaur (Pakistan’s Tribal Area where Pakistan Army had to carry out a major operation to eliminate TTP6 militants).

“Kabul’s motivations for encouraging these activities are as obvious as India’s interest in engaging in them. Even if by some act of miraculous diplomacy the territorial issues were to be resolved, Pakistan would remain an insecure state. Given the realities of the subcontinent (e.g., India’s rise and its more effective foreign relations with all of Pakistan’s near and far neighbors), these fears are bound to grow, not lessen. This suggests that without some means of compelling Pakistan to abandon its reliance upon militancy, it will become ever more interested in using it — and the militants will likely continue to proliferate beyond Pakistan’s control.”

Iran 

Iran historically has enjoyed good relations with its neighbors including Pakistan during the time of Shah of Iran, but since then their relationship with Pakistan and Arab world has deteriorated. Strategically, Iran would like to maintain balance of power tipped in its favor in the region, this means the Pakistan’s strategic interests should be undermined, as they are at the moment. Taliban, Iran’s nemesis in Afghanistan is no longer in power, India, Iran’s ally and Pakistan’s arch enemy is enjoying a strong foothold in Afghanistan at the moment. Iran is also afraid of Jandullah’s covert operations against Iran, from Baluchistan. According to an April 2007 report by Brian Rossand and Christopher Isham of ABC News, the United States governmenthad been secretly encouraging and advising the Jandullah in its attacks. 

Jandullah is a terrorist group that was created by CIA, and is responsible for terrorist activities inside Iran. Iran has spent a lot of money developing its Chabahar port, which is just 100 miles from Gwadar port of Pakistan. Gwadar port was built by China. Iran does not want Gwadar to become prominent and Chabahar to be sidelined, especially since Iran is isolated in the world at the moment. Iran has huge reserves of gas and it would like India to gain access to these reserves since India is its ally and Iran-India friendship will grow if India can gain access to Iranian gas reserves. Iran would also like trade with India to increase in future.

 

TAPI: Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan, India

 

 

IPI: Iran, Pakistan, India

India
 

“India also believes that an independent Baluchistan will likely become a proxy of Iran, India and Afghanistan.”
India is Pakistan arch enemy, first of all India has never accepted Pakistan as an independent sovereign nation. India was directly responsible for breakup of East Pakistan and formation of Bangladesh. India and Pakistan have fought three wars with each other. India is at the moment chief regional ally of US, and NATO. India believes that Pakistan is at the brink of break up and India must focus on building its relationship with Central Asia, Iran, and Afghanistan, and capture oil and gas reserves from Central Asia and Iran, through Afghanistan and Pakistan. India also believes that an independent Baluchistan will likely become a proxy of Iran, India and Afghanistan. Capt (r) Bharat Verma of Indian Defense Review, writes,

“That New Delhi is its own enemy became obvious, when it permitted the creation of a pure Islamic State on its borders. This nation-state contradicts every democratic and multi-cultural value dear to India. Therefore, if New Delhi has not slept a wink since the creation of Pakistan, it has no one except itself to blame! Many conveniently propose the myth that a stable Pakistan is in India’s interest. This is a false proposition. The truth is that Pakistan is bad news for the Indian Union since 1947-stable or otherwise. With Pakistan on the brink of collapse due to massive internal as well as international contradictions, it is matter of time before it ceases to exist. Multiple benefits will accrue to the Union of India on such demise.”

Verma Continues …

“If ever the national interests are defined with clarity and prioritized, the foremost threat to the Union (and for centuries before) materialized on the western periphery, continuously. To defend this key threat to the Union, New Delhi should extend its influence through export of both, soft and hard power towards Central Asia from where invasions have been mounted over centuries. Cessation of Pakistan as a state facilitates furtherance of this pivotal national objective. 

“The self-destructive path that Islamabad chose will either splinter the state into many parts or it will wither away-a case of natural progression to its logical conclusion. In either case Baluchistan will achieve independence. For New Delhi this opens a window of opportunity to ensure that the Gwadar port does not fall into the hands of the Chinese. In this, there is synergy between the political objectives of the Americans and the Indians. Our existing goodwill in Baluchistan requires intelligent leveraging.”

India does not have natural gas reserves, and it desperately needs gas from Iran. But US is against Iran-Pakistan-India (IPI) pipeline. If IPI project comes through than the stability and security of Iran, Pakistan and India will be in the interest of these respective countries. US would not like this, since it takes away an important leverage from a superpower, that of playing one nation against another. US have proposed the idea of Independent Baluchistan, which India does not mind at all. India has gained strong foot hold inside Afghanistan. A road link connects Iranian port of Chabahar to Afghanistan. India has built a ring-road inside Afghanistan linking Iran to Afghanistan. With back channel diplomacy going on between Iran and US, India and Iran both would like NATO and US supplies to go through Chabahar, Iran rather than Karachi, Pakistan. India strongly believes that Independent Baluchistan is inevitable and is casting all its bets on this deal.

 

Road link from Iran into Afghanistan
(see checkered line, lower left arrow)

 

Washington’s interest in Baluchistan 

“It is imperative the Baluchistan, an energy rich province must not come under control of China.”According to a study titled “Baloch Nationalism and the energy politics of energy resources: the changing context of separatism in Pakistan”, by Robert G.Wirsing, of Strategic Studies Institute, a think tank of U.S army, it is imperative the Baluchistan, an energy rich province must not come under control of China. China built Gwadar port, and would like to expand more trade and energy routes through Pakistan via Baluchistan.

To begin with China is interested in a gas pipeline from Iran through Pakistan’s into Western China. This is something that is not acceptable to US. China could station some of its naval ships at Gwadar in future should the need arise to provide security to its cargo; this is again something that is not acceptable to US. On the list of US agenda is to secure the Indian Ocean and its strategic routes, and Gwadar right at the mouth of Strait of Hormuz is one of those routes. As mentioned before US is using Baluchistan as a base to carry out covert operations against Iran using Jandullah. After 9/11 US is also using an airfield of Pakistan Air force in Baluchistan for its operations in war on terror.

The U.S. is looking into taking direct control of Gwadar, possibly by capturing Gwadar port, so that they can make a land route through Baluchistan into Southern Afghanistan, this will give them an alternate supply route for their troops. Baluchistan must be under US control so that gas pipelines from Central Asia can pump gas through Afghanistan into coast of Baluchistan. The US believes that Balkanization of Pakistan and setup of independent Baluchistan will dismantle the hope of resurgent Pakistan in the near future, paving the way for a dominant Iran taking control of Middle East while India will be able to take control of South Asia including Afghanistan. Brzezinski believes that Iran not Arab world is the natural ally of US in the Middle East. The current US government is using the foreign policy ideals of Brzezinski, which calls for using Islamic militant and Iran against China and Russia. 

Conclusion
 

“The solution of Baluchistan lies with a strong government in Islamabad that is a nationalist government and not a puppet of IMF/WB/CIA.”
Current Pakistani government is not able to safeguard Pakistan’s national interests. When Zardari3became president he authorized release of many BLA terrorist who were held up by security forces in detention. BLA has gotten ample time to regroup and re-arm during the last few months. It is very interesting that the current Chief Minister of Baluchistan, Nawab Aslam Raisani before becoming CM, said in an interview, “We will not go for any type of compromise,” says Nawab Raisani. “We want total autonomy.”

According to author of bestselling book, ‘The Way of the World’, Ron Suskind, Raisani is on the payroll of top western intelligence agencies. Given the level of US penetration in Pakistan’s domestic politics it is no surprise.  

The solution of Baluchistan lies with a strong government in Islamabad that is a nationalist government and not a puppet of IMF/WB/CIA. There should be no doubt in anyone’s mind that BLA does not represent the aggrieved Baloch people. BLA is a terrorist outfit and it must be dealt with accordingly. We need to get rid of this government that is working nothing like a democracy. Key decisions are taken by either Zardari or his important Washington approved advisors. We need a new setup of nationalist that are willing to stand up to US and make independent policy decision in the best interest of Pakistan. To counter the growing influence of India, Iran and US in Baluchistan it is a must that old contracts with China be renewed and new development projects must be initiated with Chinese help. The local population of Baluchistan must be given more shares in jobs and resources. This is only achievable if we have patriots in the provincial government of Baluchistan, not scoundrels who are abusing patriotism for their personal greed.

The problem for US is that BLA alone is not able to break away Baluchistan from Pakistan. Of the 5% population of Baluchistan they don’t even have support of 10% Balochi population. The Pakistan Army and ISI are resisting the assault in national and strategic interests of Pakistan. The Great Game of Brzezinski will surely continue in Baluchistan and rest of Pakistan, the people of Pakistan are ready to counter this great game now we need leadership and some courage. It will take some time to achieve courage and leadership but it will come eventually. Street revolutions are easy to carry out the hard part is the mental revolution. That is what is required right now to challenge the US global hegemony.  

Glossary of Terms and people mentioned 

1. Pervaiz Musharraf is former dictator-turned- president of Pakistan. He was forced out of office due to the assassination of Benazir Bhutto and his loss of support by his former sponsor, the U.S. government.

2. The Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) is the ruling political party under President Zardari.

3. Asif Ali Zardari is the current president of Pakistan. He is the former husband of Benazir Bhutto and came into power on her coat tails after she was assassinated. He is also the son of veteran politician Mr. Hakim Ali Zardari. Mr. Zardari is commonly known in Pakistan as “Mr. Ten Percent” due to his well-known cuts on various government deals.

4. BLA is Baloch Liberation Army, officially declared a terrorist outfit by Pakistan, US and UK. Is responsible for various terrorist activities in Pakistan that includes killing civilians, security forces, and blowing up natural gas pipelines.

5. Nawab Akbar Bugti was former head of the Bugti tribe of balochistan, also 13th governor of Baluchistan and the 5th Chief Minister of the province. He and his family favored creation of Pakistan. Bugti was killed on Aug 26th 2006 in a military operation when he was surrounded in a remote hill in Baluchistan.

6. Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) is the main anti-government party in Pakistan at the moment. Because the TTP bears the name “Taliban” the western media often confuses them with the Taliban in Afghanistan. This is a grave mistake. The Afgan Taliban rejects the TTP. The TTP views the ANP to be pro-US and part of the pro-US Pakistan government. The TTP is a group based on Takfiri ideology (a Muslim who believes that all other Muslims, even orthodox Muslims are not true Muslims. They view all others as collaborators with the West. All Muslim scholars are unanimous in declaring Takfiris ‘heretics of Islam 

Maps taken from Strategic Studies Institute Report on Baluchistan.

Talha Mujaddidi is a writer/analyst, living in Pakistan and a columnist for Axis of Logic.

Comments on this Video

Russian TV Says BLA Is USA Dirty Dog very very important report

These are not freedom fighters, these are ugly dogs of U.S.A – Israel & India

 
Like ·  · Share · April 10

, , , , ,

No Comments


Skip to toolbar