A sophisticated armed fight
for a province’s autonomy
Pakistan’s Baluch insurgency
Serious troubles have erupted in the Pakistan province of Baluchistan
since the assassination of an opposition leader in August. Pressure for
independence is growing in this region bordering Iran and Afghanistan,
which challenges Pakistan’s authority.
By Selig S Harrison
THE slow-motion genocide being inflicted on Baluch tribesmen in the
mountains and deserts of southwestern Pakistan does not yet qualify as a
major humanitarian catastrophe compared with the slaughter in Darfur or
Chechnya. “Only” 2,260 Baluch fled their villages in August to escape
bombing and strafing by the US-supplied F-16 fighter jets and Cobra
helicopter gunships of the Pakistan air force, but as casualty figures
mount, it will be harder to ignore the human costs of the Baluch
independence (1) struggle and its political repercussions in other restive
minority regions of multi-ethnic Pakistan (2).
Already, in neighboring Sindh, separatists who share Baluch opposition
to the Punjabi-dominated military regime of General Pervez Musharraf are
reviving their long-simmering movement for a sovereign Sindhi state, or a
Sindhi-Baluch federation, that would stretch along the Arabian Sea from
Iran in the west to the Indian border. Many Sindhi leaders openly express
their hope that instability in Pakistan will tempt India to help them,
militarily and economically, to secede from Pakistan as Bangladesh did
with Indian help in 1971.
Some 6 million Baluch were forcibly incorporated into Pakistan when it
was created in 1947. This is the fourth insurgency they have fought to
protest against economic and political discrimination. In the most bitter
insurgency, from 1973 to 1977, some 80,000 Pakistani troops and 55,000
Baluch were involved in the fighting.
Iran, like Pakistan, was then an ally of the United States. Shah
Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, who feared that the insurgency would spread across
the border to 1.2 million Baluch living in eastern Iran, sent 30 Cobra
gunships with Iranian pilots to help Islamabad. But this time Iran is not
a US ally, and Iran and Pakistan are at odds. Tehran charges that US
Special Forces units are using bases in Pakistan for undercover operations
inside Iran designed to foment Baluch opposition to the regime of
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
Much of the anger that now motivates the Baluch Liberation Army (BLA)
is driven by memories of Pakistani scorched earth tactics in past battles.
In a climactic battle in 1974, Pakistani forces, frustrated by their
inability to find Baluch guerrilla units hiding in the mountains, bombed,
strafed and burned the encampments of some 15,000 Baluch families who had
taken their livestock to graze in the fertile Chamalang Valley, forcing
the guerrillas to come out from their hideouts to defend their women and
children.
‘Indiscrimate bombing’
In the current fighting, which started in January 2005, the independent
Pakistan Human Rights Commission has reported that “indiscriminate bombing
and strafing” by F-16s and Cobra gunships are again being used to draw the
guerrillas into the open. Six Pakistani army brigades, plus paramilitary
forces totalling some 25,000 men, are deployed in the Kohlu mountains and
surrounding areas where the fighting is most intense.
Musharraf is using new methods, more repressive than those of his
predecessors, to crush the insurgency. In the past Baluch activists were
generally arrested on formal charges and sentenced to fixed terms in
prisons known to their families. This time Baluch spokesmen have reported
large-scale kidnappings and disappearances, charging that Pakistani forces
have rounded up hundreds of Baluch youths on unspecified charges and taken
them to unknown locations.
The big difference between earlier phases of the Baluch struggle and
the present one is that Islamabad has so far not been able to play off
feuding tribes against each other. Equally importantly, it faces a unified
nationalist movement under younger leadership drawn not only from tribal
leaders but also from an emergent, literate Baluch middle class that did
not exist three decades ago. Another difference is that the Baluch have a
better armed, more disciplined fighting force in the BLA. Baluch leaders
say that rich compatriots and sympathisers in the Persian Gulf provide
money needed to buy weapons in the flourishing black market along the
Afghan frontier.
President Musharraf has repeatedly accused India of supplying weapons
to the Baluch insurgents and funds to Sindhi separatist groups, but has
provided no evidence to back up these charges. India denies the
accusations. At the same time New Delhi has issued periodic statements
expressing concern at the fighting and calling for political dialogue.
India brushes aside suggestions that it might be tempted to help Sindhi
and Baluch insurgents if the situation in Pakistan continues to unravel.
Indian leaders say that. on the contrary, India wants a stable Pakistan
that will negotiate a peace settlement in Kashmir so that both sides can
wind down their costly arms race. But many India media commentators appear
happy to see Musharraf tied down in Baluchistan and hope that the crisis
will force him to reduce Pakistani support for extremist Islamic
insurgents in Kashmir.
Unlike India, Iran has its own Baluch minority and fears Baluch
nationalism. The Baluchistan People’s party, one of the leading Baluch
groups in Iran, said on 5 August that a radical Shia cleric, Hojatol
Ibrahim Nekoonam, recently installed as the justice minister of Iran’s
Baluchistan province, has launched a campaign of military and police
repression spearheaded by the Mersad clerical secret police, in which
hundreds of Baluch have been rounded up and, in many cases, executed on
charges of collaborating with the US.
Apart from being smaller in number, the Baluch in Iran are not as
politically conscious or as well organised as those in Pakistan, and their
principal leaders dismiss the idea of secession or of union with the
Baluch in Pakistan. The Baluchistan People’s party is part of a coalition
with groups representing other disaffected minorities in Iran — the Kurds,
Azeri Turks and Khuzestani Arabs — which is seeking a federal
restructuring in which Iran would retain control over foreign affairs,
defence, communications and foreign trade, but cede autonomy in other
spheres to three minority autonomous regions.
Goal of the insurgency
In Pakistan, where the Baluch have been radicalised by their periodic
military struggles with Islamabad, many Baluch leaders believe that the
goal of the insurgency should be an independent Baluchistan, unless the
military regime is willing to grant the provincial autonomy envisaged in
the 1973 constitution, which successive military regimes, including the
present one, have nullified. What the Baluch, Sindhis, and a third, more
assimilated ethnic minority, the Pashtuns, want above all is an end to the
blatant economic discrimination by the dominant Punjabis.
Most of Pakistan’s natural resources are in Baluchistan, including
natural gas, uranium, copper and potentially rich oil reserves. Although
36% of the gas produced in Pakistan comes from the province, Baluchistan
consumes only a fraction of production because it is the most impoverished
area of the country. For decades, Punjabi-dominated central governments
have denied Baluchistan a fair share of development funds and paid only
12% of the royalties due to it for its gas. Similarly, the Sindhi and
Pashtun areas have consistently been denied fair access to the waters of
the Indus River by dam projects that channel the lion’s share of the water
to the Punjab.
In a television speech on 20 July, devoted mostly to Baluchistan,
Musharraf dismissed Baluch charges of economic discrimination and
announced a $49.8m development programme for the province, half for roads
and other infrastructure projects. The “real exploiters” of the Baluch, he
said, are the tribal chieftains, known as sardars, who “have stolen
development funds for themselves”. He claimed that the armed forces have
been sent into Baluchistan to protect the Baluch from their leaders while
development proceeds. Musharraf blamed the insurgency on the sardars,
principally Akbar Bugti, who was killed on 26 August when the army blew up
a cave where he was hiding. But the current insurgency is not being led by
the tribal elders but by a new generation of politically conscious Baluch
nationalists.
What makes negotiations on autonomy difficult are the economic issues
relating to taxation and to the terms for sharing the resulting revenues
from the development of oil, gas and other natural resources. In most
proposals for a devolution of power to the provinces, Baluch and Sindhi
leaders have argued that taxes collected by the central government should
not be allocated, as at present, solely on a population basis, which
favours the Punjab; instead, it has been suggested, half should be
allocated on a population basis, while the rest should be distributed in
accordance with the amount collected in each province. Since the provinces
have equal representation in the Senate, even under the 1973 constitution,
the upper chamber should be given greater powers, with the Senate, rather
than the president or prime minister, empowered to dissolve a provincial
legislature or to declare an emergency.
A more extreme demand is that Baluch, Pashtuns, Sindhis and Punjabis
should have complete parity in both chambers of the National Assembly as
well as in civil service and military recruitment, irrespective of
population disparities. All factions among the minorities give priority to
radically upgraded representation in the civil service and the armed
forces, and all want constitutional safeguards to prevent the central
government from arbitrarily removing an elected provincial government, as
Prime Minister Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto did in 1973. The issue of safeguards
against arbitrary central intervention is likely to be a non-negotiable
one for the minorities, since they are seeking not only the substance, but
also the feeling, of autonomy.
A tiny minority
The Baluch are only 3.57% of Pakistan’s 165.8 million people, and the
three minorities combined claim only 33%. Yet they identify themselves
with ethnic homelands that cover 72% of Pakistan’s territory. To the
Punjabis, it is galling that the minorities should advance proprietary
claims over such large areas. For this reason, the prospects for a
restoration of the 1973 constitution appear bleak.
In the final analysis, the possibility of a constitutional compromise
is inseparably linked with the overall course of the struggle for
democratisation. With continued military rule, the Baluch insurgency and
the growing movement for Sindhi rights will be radicalised. But it is
unlikely that the Baluch could prevail militarily over Pakistani forces
and establish an independent state, even with Sindhi help, unless India
intervenes as part of a broader confrontation with Islamabad. The prospect
in late 2006 is for a continuing, inconclusive struggle by the Baluch and
Sindhis against Islamabad, that will debilitate Pakistan.
In the eyes of the Baluch and Sindhis, the US has a major share of the
blame for the present crisis because US military hardware is being used to
repress the Baluch insurgency, and a cornucopia of US economic aid to
Islamabad since 11 September 2001 has kept Musharraf afloat. Military aid
to Musharraf since 9/11, including the sale of 36 F-16s, recently approved
by Congress, has totalled $900m so far, and another $600m is promised by
2009. Economic aid has not only included $3.6bn in US and US-sponsored
multilateral aid but also the US-orchestrated postponement of $13.5bn in
overdue debt repayments to aid donors.
Instead of pressing Musharraf for a political settlement with the
minorities, as some European Union officials have done, the Bush
administration has said that its ethnic tensions are an “internal matter”
for Pakistan itself to resolve. Human rights organisations have called for
international pressure on Musharraf to pursue a settlement, and critics in
the US argue that the diversion of US-equipped Pakistani forces from the
Afghan frontier to Baluchistan undermines even the limited operations
against al-Qaida and the Taliban that Musharraf is pursuing in response to
US pressure. Until Bush’s departure, however, the US commitment to
Musharraf is likely to remain firm, barring the outside possibility that
he will step down in the face of growing domestic pressure and permit
former prime ministers Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif to participate in
the presidential elections scheduled for next year.
October 2006 |