Balochistan’s accession to Pakistan Sheikh Asad Rahman The political, economic, social, cultural discrimination and military operations that Balochistan’s people are facing today are nothing new and such things have been going on since the very inception of Pakistan. This discrimination has taken on even more sinister overtones of late, leading some commentators to warn that a situation seems to be emerging similar to that which pertained in 1970-71 in respect of East Pakistan, now Bangladesh. The fact is that it is not the Baloch that have not accepted the suzerainty of Pakistan, it is the Pakistani establishment that has never accepted the Baloch as rightful, legal, patriotic citizens of Pakistan. The Baloch had supported the movement for an independent Muslim State in the Indian Subcontinent even before the 1940 Pakistan Resolution. They actively contributed to the struggle for a separate homeland for the Muslims of India through monetary contributions, moral and political support to the All India Muslim League. Unfortunately our history books, establishment and governments have never recognised this through publication of the real facts, nor appreciated the Baloch contribution to the emergence of Pakistan as an independent entity in the comity of nations. The pathetic and abject poverty that the Baloch live in compel one to take up their just cause and demands to be treated as patriotic, legal, equal citizens of Pakistan. These demands are not only confined to Balochistan but are also representative of rural Sindh, NWFP, especially the south, southern Punjab and the Northern Areas, all of which constitute approximately 75 percent of Pakistan’s territory. It is therefore necessary to initiate a debate and try to set some historical records straight through this series of articles to cover all aspects of the so-called Balochistan problem. The need for such a debate is being acutely felt today because of the dangerous political and economic conditions prevailing in Balochistan that are reinforcing the separatist forces spreading perceptions of ruthless exploitation by Punjabis as a whole, amongst the common Baloch. To ascertain and understand the root cause of this dissatisfaction, discrimination and perception of exploitation, we need to go back to pre-independence days and the creation of Pakistan. Historically, Balochistan or Kalat has never been a part of India. Of the early history of the State little or nothing is known. The first distinct account we have is from Arrian, who narrates the march of Alexander through this region. In the eighth century, an army of the Caliphate traversed the country. Kambar, a leader of the mountain tribes, founded the first dynasty. After various successes, the Kambarianis at length possessed the sovereignty of a considerable portion of the fruitful plain of Gandava. It was about this time that Nadir Shah advanced from Persia to the invasion of Hindustan, and the Khan of Kalat, who helped the Shah with men and money, was by a firman appointed “Beglar Begi” (Prince of Princes) of all Baloch tribes. On the death of Nadir Shah, the Khan of Kalat acknowledged the title of the King of Kabul, Ahmed Shah Durrani. In 1758, however, the Khan declared the State entirely independent, upon which Ahmed Shah dispatched a force against him under one of his ministers. This expedition terminated in a treaty of peace, by which the Khan agreed to furnish troops to assist the Kabul armies, and the Afghan King in return, agreed to pay a cash allowance. From that time till 1839, when the British army advanced through the Bolan Pass to Afghanistan, Kalat was completely independent, owing no allegiance to any authority in India or elsewhere. Kalat or Balochistan was never an Indian State either, and has never been assimilated to the position of an Indian State. The British government in India never claimed the doctrine of paramountcy as applicable to its relations with Kalat, nor has the Khan ever admitted that the powers of paramountcy could be exercised against him and his government. On the contrary, several representatives of the British colonial government described Kalat as a sovereign and independent State. In 1872, Sir W. L. Merewether, who was in charge of the British government’s relations with Kalat, wrote as follows, ‘There cannot, in my opinion, be the least doubt of the course which should be followed with regard to Kalat, or Balochistan as it should be correctly termed. His Highness the Khan is the de facto and de jure Ruler of that country. We have treaty engagements with him under which he is bound to keep his subjects from injuring British territory or people, to protect trade, etc. But the treaty is with him as ruler only, and under none of the engagements are we called upon to enter directly into the manner in which he carries on his government.’ Sir Bartle Frere, another recognised British authority on Kalat, held the same view. Dealing with the British government vis-à-vis Kalat, Sir Bartle wrote as follows in 1876: ‘It was a cardinal rule to attempt no disintegration of the Khan of Kalat’s sovereignty, whether nominal or real, over the Baloch tribes, but rather by every means in our power to uphold his authority…The Khan was regarded as our independent ally, free to act as he pleased in internal affairs, but externally subordinate to the English Government in all that could affect anything beyond his own borders.’ This policy was insisted upon by the Government of India against the wishes of the local officers even during the years of anarchy and discord that prevailed in Kalat till the conclusion of the treaty of 1876. There was no attempt on the part of the Government of India to exercise any powers of paramountcy; on the contrary, they did not even avail themselves of the authority delegated to them under the treaties, apart from suspending the payment of the annual subsidy. Lord Salisbury, the then secretary of State for India, while approving of the policy adopted by the Government of India wrote as follows to the Governor General-in-Council: “Armed intervention would appear an unfriendly act towards a State with which our relations have, until recently been cordial, while it would probably entail a prolonged occupation of the country, and might involve ulterior results of a serious kind in other quarters…His Majesty’s Government trusts that an early opportunity may be taken of again placing the relations between the Government of India and the Khan of Kalat on the friendly footing provided for by the Treaty of 1854, and thereby re-establish a position of affairs desirable in the interests of the British Government, and essential to the continued existence of Kalat as an independent State.” It is, however, no doubt true that the Government of India Act, 1935, treats Kalat as an Indian State and provides representation for it in the Federal Legislature, but the State was never consulted in the drafting of the Act, nor was it a party to it in any manner. The territories of the Kalat State being outside the limits of the legislative authority of the British parliament, the Act could not be held binding on the State. Nevertheless, the Khan of Kalat lodged a protest against the provisions of the Act, which he considered an infringement of the treaty and asked for a formal reaffirmation of the treaties of 1854 and 1876. In a personal letter to the Khan of Kalat, His Excellency the Crown Representative assured him that such reaffirmation was unnecessary and that His Excellency recognised the treaty of 1876 as fully valid in every respect, and that it would henceforth form the basis of the relations between the British Government and the Kalat State. The views of the Government of Kalat regarding the future position of the State at the time are as follows: In view of the foregoing considerations, the Government of Kalat maintains, and they are supported in this by the unanimous will of the subjects of the State: That the Kalat State is an independent sovereign State whose relations with the British Government are governed by the Treaty of 1876. That its Indian associations are merely due to its connections with the British Government. That Kalat being an independent State, the Khan, his government, and his people can never agree to Kalat being included in any form of Indian Union; and That with the termination of the treaty with the British Government, the Kalat State will revert to its pre-treaty position of complete independence and will be free to choose its own course for the future. The Khan and his government are, however, anxious to continue friendly and amicable relations with India and will always be glad to enter into an alliance with any government, which succeeds the British government in India on the basis of strictest reciprocity and mutual recognition of independence. This thus was the political position of Balochistan right up to the partition of the Subcontinent. That Balochistan was an independent State governed by the British India government through treaties negotiated at various times. For the interest of history students and interested politicians and intellectuals, these treaties are all available for scrutiny in the Pakistan Archives, Balochistan Gazetteers and the British Museum Library. Balochistan enjoyed a special status under British rule as we have established. The Agent of the Governor General was the administrative head of the Kalat State, as Balochistan was known then. The Agent to the Governor General held the supreme position in the state with Political Agents in all districts of Balochistan, while the Political Agent in Kalat district functioned as the Prime Minister as well. Respective Political Agents administered Lasbela, Kharan, and Makran, etc. The Khan-e-Kalat was the head of the State only on paper. For all practical purposes, authority was vested with the Political Agents who functioned under the direct orders of the Agent to the Governor General. Nasirabad, Chagai and the tribal regions of Marri and Bugti each had a separate Political Agent. Dera Ghazi Khan was absorbed in Punjab, and Jacobabad (formally Khangarh) was given over to Sindh. Also a substantial tract of the borderland of Balochistan was handed over to Iran. This region is still marked as ‘Iranian Balochistan’ on old geographical maps. The Baloch were deliberately barred from key posts in the Government of Kalat, while non-Baloch and persons adept at the art of loyal services to the British occupied high positions. In the sphere of education, the masses were criminally ignored. The budget allocation for this vital sector was a mere Rs. 13,000. On the judicial plane, a system of Jirga was introduced by the British, supplanting the Islamic system of dispensing justice based on Shariat (Islamic Laws) and Baloch traditions. What was ridiculous was that the Political Agents in their respective areas and regions nominated all the members of the Jirga. Appeals, if any, against decisions were directed to be lodged with the Agent to the Governor General in India, who would issue final orders in the name of the Khan-e-Baloch. Thousands of innocent persons were harassed and put into jails without trial. The writer is a freelance columnist. 18.6.06