On 4th May 1947, Quaid e Azam stated that the British partition plan had given him a “mutilated, truncated, moth-eaten Pakistan”. In 1971, Pakistan was further truncated with the creation of Bangladesh, this time at the hand of its arch-enemy India. Alas, Pakistan is again facing a similar situation and this time it is India and Afghanistan that are conspiring to further truncate Pakistan by fueling the insurgency in Balochistan.
Pakistan came into being a disadvantaged state especially compared to its larger and stronger neighbor India. Though Pakistan was granted about 24% of the total land mass of the Indian subcontinent but got only 10% of its industrial base and 16% of its financial assets. The mainstay of the economy was agriculture, yet the income generated through it was not sufficient enough to generate industrialization. Jute export was a major source of foreign exchange earnings but there was not even a single Jute mill in Pakistan; all the Jute mills were in India. Pakistan was to get 750 million rupees out of the 4 billion rupees in the reserve bank, but only 200 million were transferred.
In addition to this, the massive refugee influx in the first months of independence and conflict on Kashmir exacerbated its sense of insecurity as a state The Pakistani leadership believed that India had not accepted the partition wholeheartedly and would continue to threaten Pakistan’s existence to achieve Akhund Baharat. This made Pakistan a security state giving the military a major role in devising policies, and democracy had to take a backseat.
Ethnic Divisions and the Challenge of National Integration
Pakistan was never a homogenous state either and constituted four different regions, with Pakhtuns in the north, Balouchis in the west, Sindhis in the south, and Punjabis in the northeast. These people had different traditions, cultures, languages, and lifestyles. The only unifying thing was the religion of Islam but alas, that could not keep Bengalis within the fold of Pakistan. Democracy could have been another unifying force but alas, it could not flourish in Pakistan for the security concerns it had to face right at the onset. The situation was thus ripe to make the underdeveloped provinces of Pakistan antagonized with the resource-rich Punjab and the Army, mostly comprised of Punjabis, had to take the blame for all ills.
Ethno-nationalist movements, exacerbated by neighboring hostile countries, were considered a threat to the Pakistani state and were dealt with with varying severity. The military action in East Pakistan was harsher as that insurgency was supported by India, whereas, the threat presented by the Baloch insurgents was deemed manageable as it was influenced by Afghanistan, a much weaker neighbor. Therefore, the Baloch insurgency remained confined to a few districts of Balochistan and was never conceived as a serious threat by the Pakistani establishment.
Read More: The Taliban 2.0 and its implication for Pakistan
India’s Open Support for the Baloch Insurgency
The scenario changed in 2016, when in a substantial shift in policy on Balochistan, the Indian PM in his Independence Day speech referred to the Baloch insurgency as a struggle for freedom, saying they had reached out to him and thanked him for his support. It was an open confession of supporting insurgency in Balochistan by the Indian PM. The Pakistani state was alarmed and asked the world to take note of it as this is like creating another 1971-like situation for Pakistan.
And then happened the hostage-taking of 440 passengers of the Jaffar Express train by the Balochistan Liberation Army (BLA), an organization declared terrorist by Pakistan, China, Iran, the UK, the USA, and the European Union. That event proved to be the proverbial last straw on the camel’s back and Pakistan’s strategy of dealing leniently with Baloch insurgents changed forever. Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR) Director General Lt Gen Ahmed Sharif Chaudhry announced that the rules of the games will be changed and no tolerance will be shown for the terrorists and their facilitators. He made it clear who were the facilitators, “We must understand that in this terrorist incident in Balochistan, and others before, the main sponsor is your eastern neighbor (India),”.
The Path Forward: Internal and External Strategies
The future course of action by Pakistan must be two-pronged; internal and external. Launching a comprehensive operation against terrorists and their facilitators within Pakistan is the most obvious one. But this will only bring lasting peace if supported by other long-term actions like eradicating rampant poverty, unemployment, underdevelopment, and placing a representative local government (not the tribal sardars who are part of the problem rather than the solution). Similarly, on the external front, a dossier must be prepared with proof of Indian involvement in supporting a terrorist organization, the BLA, and presented to international bodies.
Read More: Is China the reason behind US withdrawal from Afghanistan?
India is already accused of state-sponsored homicides, extortion, and violent acts by Canada and the USA. Both governments have claimed that India’s top diplomats were directly involved in the killing of Sikh leaders on their soil. The UK, Australia, and New Zealand are also criticizing the Indian government’s involvement in such heinous crimes. Hence, the World would be more sympathetic towards Pakistan now if presented with irrefutable pieces of evidence. Moreover, the latest attacks have posed a threat to the projects of Gwadar port and the extraction of minerals from Reqo Dik in the Chaghi district. Both have significant importance for China. Therefore, China will be willing to help Pakistan against India.
But having said that, bringing peace to the restive province of Balochistan will remain the responsibility of Pakistani leadership. All necessary measures, leaving the egos at bay, must be taken so that Pakistan could turn the tables and avoid any 1971-like situation in Balochistan.
The writer is a freelance contributor based in Manchester, UK. The views expressed in the article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Global Village Space.