Daily Times

Evelyn Beatrice Hall in her biography summed up Voltaire’s beliefs, while attributing the following phrase to him, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” My article on Balochistan titled “Any Change is a Change in the Topic”, which was published in Daily Times on February 29, 2012, received a lukewarm response from those Baloch intellectuals who have been acclaimed as Marxists. They believe, and to some extent rightly so, that in Balochistan the web of life has become so complicated that comparing the Balochistan of today to the South Cone of yesteryear undermines the real nature of the crime being perpetrated against the Baloch people. They refuse to withdraw the rebuke underlying their sarcasm, but without suggesting any alternative. In retrospect, it seems that our discourse failed to progress beyond the first part of Hall’s saying, while the second part was a luxury we all could ill-afford unless hara-kiri was the next thing on our agenda. A scent of innocent blood has already permeated the air around Balochistan. The stink lingers faintly, albeit effectively, to remind us of how callous and relentless a state can be towards its citizens.

One needs to discern that very subtle line that distinguishes a revolutionary from a terrorist. History has judged Che as an all-time icon, while it will not treat Osama bin Laden with any measure of sympathy, though both fought against the hegemony of imperialism. The objective of Che was to redeem the people from economic and social woes. He wanted to expropriate the expropriators, whereas bin Laden was a lost cause from the beginning. He failed to understand the dynamics of capitalism, and was used as a tool for and against it. People look for their economic respite no less than their political freedom. This cannot be achieved without changing property relations. On both occasions, religious haze denied him access to this reality. Rather than a hero of history, this turned him into a spectator of his own tragedy.

In Balochistan, the dominant mode of production is pastoral, which is politically organised in a tribal form. Patches of agriculture and fishing can also be seen. Mining — a primitive but extremely beneficial industry — is still largely unexplored. Two reasons can be extended for the underdevelopment of this sector: the overall socio-economic structure of Pakistan, which is dominated by a feudal class; and the hegemonic role of the Pakistan army, which is an autocracy and refuses to cede power to the people. It stands above the ruling classes, but not independent of them. It is a force for compromise between a weak capitalist class, which is largely non-industrial/trade-based, and the ruling feudal class. Hence, it plays a ‘Bonapartist’ role, though at times when the situation is not congenial, it marshals from behind the scenes. By controlling the means of distribution, it maintains its dominant character. This arrangement of power stifles any attempt at social change. Due to its feudal ties, the army helps to maintain the hegemony of this particular class, which explains why land reforms remain elusive.

The Baloch nationalists fighting for ‘freedom’ may not be unfamiliar with this iron law of history that the oppression and exploitation of a society by outside forces is never possible without the connivance of its own ruling class. During the US Congressional hearing, the nationalists were found wanting in purpose as well as prudence. Does it mean that they are prepared to exchange one form of hegemony for another? This may change their destination though any significant transformation in destiny will remain a mirage. History bears testimony that people can never earn their freedom from the hegemonic classes and the imperial powers as a reward for services rendered to them. As regards the development of the mining sector, there is sufficient reason to believe that the Baloch apprehensions may not be altogether based on false presumptions. The state of Pakistan is not only lacking in will, but is equally incapable of bringing about development primarily due to the feudal mode of production, which leaves an insignificant surplus for investment (in keeping with unequal terms of exchange in the international market). However, imperial intervention does not come cheap. It is difficult to pick and choose among the disasters such as the chilling ‘Salvador option’, the Latin American torture (the picana), and the genocide carried out by the Pakistan army. Disasters do not discriminate between New Orleans and Baghdad; they destroy everything that comes in their path with democratic disregard. Balochistan will not be an exception. The proud US battalion stationed in Iraq named as ‘Murderous Maniacs’ never took the pain to differentiate between a civilian and an enemy-combatant. Both were massacred indiscriminately. For Iraq, the US pushed a new oil law, which allowed “companies like Shell and BP to sign 30 years contracts in which they could keep a large share of Iraq’s oil profits, amounting to tens or even hundreds of billions of dollars…it is hard to overestimate the disgrace of this attempted resource grab” (Naomi Klein). This law was pushed forward when Iraq was gripped by the worst sectarian strife, with an average of 1,000 Iraqis being killed every day. By April 2007, four million people had been forced to leave their homes — roughly one in seven Iraqis. When the US forces evacuated, Iraq (still) stood devastated without any infrastructure. In the name of a sham freedom, is it a price worth paying?

Even if the nationalists succeed in their mission, which is highly unlikely, where will they go from here? Progress and civilisation grafted onto primitive conditions prove an extremely draining exercise, for they are bought with rapid economic and cultural ruin of the people who must experience simultaneously the full misery and horror of the traditional national economic system as well as a rapacious capitalist system of exploitation. The Baloch need to understand that the life interests of a nation and class interests of the proletariat are one and the same. People of all five provinces of this beleaguered state are suffering from the same whips and scorn of life. They need to join ranks against the common enemy — the ruling class. They need to drown out “the shrill cry of [feudal] capitalist hyenas with labour’s old mighty battle cry ‘proletariat of all countries unite’” (Rosa Luxemburg).

The writer is based in Australia and has authored books on socialism and history. He can be reached at saulatnagi@hotmail.com