Daily Times

Kingdoms and countries
anchor themselves in the history of the territory that they command and create a geographic identity to define their borders. And within those two parameters they go on to set up state administration and an organised society where commerce, education, science and culture, arts and crafts and all that goes for a thriving society under a state superstructure, prosper. In olden times the state identity was emphasised through resident ambassadors in neighbouring courts, treaties, trade and jurisdiction over adjoining territories and seas or denying the same to other nations under titles of sovereignty.

Gradually, those states and nations that were sufficiently stable with enterprising populations, capable of producing quality surplus goods, began to build support structures for evolution or seeding of a civilisation. Free access to abundant river waters that could be easily diverted for irrigation into adjoining plains was the fundamental brick. Renowned civilisations thrived amongst peoples and territories that could not only support their populations but also produced with such abundance as to provide time and leisure to indulge in the finer pursuits of life.

It is quite clear what should broadly constitute a claim to statehood or a successor state. To summarise, the main ingredients are a history of full scale statehood including diplomatic interaction, well recorded borders, permanent population, international treaties and trade, development of arts, crafts and sciences and a civilisation or being part of a wider regional culture.

When such original states decline or are overwhelmed, they are still recognisable through their archeological remains, architectural heritage, public works, literature and residual cultural values of the people. All those zones where ancient civilisations evolved are known for their imperial grandeur, architecture, literature and the unique art of statehood, which empires and kingdoms within their orbit practiced.

There is a talk about a greater Balochistan or revival of an extinct State of Balochistan with accompanying conspiracy theories against Pakistan and all that makes the discourse so hot. To examine the issue clinically let’s give it a reality check. We will proceed to review the historic evidence, followed by the trends of contemporary international practice.

Historically, the Baloch are from Allepo, Syria, and descendents of the legendry King Nimrod of Babylon. After the decline of the Babylonian/Kaldian Kingdom, they were pushed out of Syria in 612 BC and they settled in the northern provinces of Iran along the Southern rim of the Caspian Sea, where they continued for a thousand years with what they knew best: mercenary soldiering. In 485 AD, once again, they had to move following the invasion of Iran by the White Huns, and transited all the way to Central Iran and again in the 12th century AD to southeastern Iran settling down in Seistan, Kirman and parts of Khorasan. They seeped into the neighbouring Balochistan and southeastern Afghanistan due to proximity. In this giant human whirlpool they linked up with the equally nettlesome Jats of Indian origin, who had settled in and around Kirman and Balochistan-Seistan. This belligerent twosome soon outlived their hospitality and in the 15th century AD had to move again for safer and more remote territories where they could pursue their favourite pastime. This time they moved to Mekran and the Central Kalat highlands. Basically, they were looking for a parched territory that attracted no imperial attention due to its non-productivity and ungovernability.

They settled down in Mekran and began to maraud up and astride the Indus River into Sind, Punjab and the present day Balochistan. Between the Indus River and Iranian Seistan they chanced upon an ideal terrain for their kind of nomadic, predatory lifestyle. It was a vast and barren tract of treeless desert and bare mountains stretching thousands of kilometres from Mekran to Kandahar and west of the Indus River to Seistan and Herat.

Iranian, Afghan or Central Asian kingdoms were not interested to occupy this inhospitable territory except for an occasional military campaign into the Indian plains below. For that purpose they could easily obtain their allegiance through money and the lure of plunder during their raids into the rich alluvial plains below. By the mid-16th century AD they were well spread and settled in Balochistan, which is now part of three countries: Pakistan, Iran and Afghanistan. Iran and Afghanistan had established their suzerainty over their parts of the Baloch-inhabited territories hundreds of years before Pakistan did and assimilated them firmly into their state systems.

During more than 500 years of uncertain sway, mostly by larger tribal fiefdoms like Kalat, Lasbela, Mekran and Kharan, the Baloch were unable to set up a unified state, as “they were hopelessly destitute of administrative capacity and statesmanship” (History of Baluch Race and Baluchistan by Mohammad Sardar Khan Baluch). Thus, there was hardly any diplomatic interaction except that a British Resident Political Agent was imposed in1884 on the Kalat Court to act as an overlord rather than an ambassador; no international trade or any exchange of arts and crafts took place. They did not leave behind any architectural heritage or benevolent public works like wells, canals, hospitals, universities, roads and bridges, not even self-perpetuating tombs, palaces or memorials. These things do not, as a rule, interest a predatory or nomadic people. There is not even a pamphlet of the Baloch literature, quite naturally. Their only administration that could be considered remotely close to a state was under Mir Chakar Khan’s rule (1487-1555 AD), which lasted as long as he lived and left no historic trace behind after 68 years of its hotly contested existence by the equally powerful Lashari Baloch. It was like a kingdom in the clouds. Typically, he died campaigning elsewhere and is buried near Sahiwal and not in the Baloch territory. Most significantly, Kalat was not a Baloch state but initially a Mongol-Turkic and finally a Mirwari Brahui principality.

Now let’s move on to the contemporary evidence to examine the current international environment for an adventure like Greater Balochistan. There is a similarity that has emerged between the fate of Kurdistan and that of the possible future of Greater Balochistan or even an independent part of it, after the cause was internationalised and supported by outside powers. Simply put, to create a Greater Balochistan, three extremely sensitive and volatile countries will have to be undone. Presently, Afghanistan’s anarchy alone is unmanageable, let alone Balkanise Pakistan and Iran too. There is also no guarantee if the so-called independent Balochistan could ever contribute to stability in the region, as the people are not known to be homogenous. Then to make the matter even more difficult, their access to Afghanistan and Central Asia is under the chokehold of Pakhtuns in a wide strategic arc from Chaghai all the way to Chaman and on to the bank of the River Indus. Therefore, it follows that the notion is a political impracticality, against the going international sentiment, and could lead to tragic consequences in the region if followed. Our global nemesis al Qaeda and its load of vipers look for just such an implosion to insert and operate from. The ramifications are not difficult to imagine.

Conventional political wisdom and sagacity should advise against this nostalgic adventure. With the kind of awareness and support that the Baloch ‘dissident’ leaders have been able to generate for their plight, they would be better placed to use that for advantageous political negotiations within the nuclearised Pakistani state rather than trying to tear it down. The world today is not open to splitting countries, as a rule.

The writer is a retired brigadier of the Pakistan army and can be reached at clay.potter@hotmail.com