Daily Times

The world order in force since the last century has spawned many states at the whims of the colonial powers, aimed at rewarding loyal collaborators who promised continued service and support for their masters. The colonising states, concerned only with their future material interests, gambled with the fates of many nations residing within these arbitrarily created artificial states. Many nations suffered because of these unjust arrangements between the colonial masters and their favourites. The Baloch and the Kurds have suffered immeasurably, the former in Pakistan and Iran and the latter in Iraq, Iran and Turkey.

The start of the last century saw hope of a change in the world order with the Russian revolution. The socialists not only supported a central monolithic entity to bring about a socialist revolution in their own countries but also in countries with capitalism; consequently, to date, the leftist parties still support the existing states even where nationalities are denied rights and are oppressed. The attitude of the left here has been absolutely pathetic; large sections of the left wholeheartedly supported the Pakistani army’s operation against the Bengalis and regarding the Baloch struggle, they continue to support state repression or at best are ambiguous. The national struggle has been the Achilles’ heel of the left-oriented parties everywhere and has left them floundering.

Historically, all predator nations have tried to find justifications for their excesses. The Greeks claimed they were spreading civilisation to the darkest corners, the Romans were fighting the barbarians. The Christian world was striving to save souls while Muslims said they were spreading the light of Islam. Colonialists wanted to civilise the savages with development in the supposedly backward but resource-rich regions of the world. The Communists wanted rights for the proletariat and the death of imperialism while the capitalists fighting the communist menace wanted democracy for all and did not want the ‘Domino Theory’ to kick into action. Sometimes, their fight was against the ‘Axis of evil’ or the ‘war on terror’, sometimes to save world peace by pre-empting the use of weapons of mass destruction. Others oppressed people to ‘establish the writ of the state’ or to ‘protect the country’s integrity’. All predator nations and countries come up with their own set of clichés to give a benign face to their crimes against humanity.

All the above clichés actually are quite hollow and self-serving, but I think Iran takes the cake when to justify killings and oppressive actions against the Baloch and Kurds it calls them Mohareb (enemy of God) and claims that the punishments were for ‘waging war against God’. It leaves one wondering whether it is the clergy or their government that personifies God. Recent reports from East Kurdistan say two presently imprisoned Kurdish politician brothers, Lokman and Zanyar Muradi, will be soon executed. They, like others, were tortured before being charged with waging war against God. In 2010, Abdolmalek Rigi, arrested by Iranian intelligence with the connivance of Pakistani intelligence, and 11 other Baloch, were hanged in Zahedan on similar charges.

All states, whether western democracies or eastern oligarchies, consider existing states indivisibly sacrosanct like God and are not ready to concede rights to the nations residing within their frontiers. Pakistan and the Middle Eastern countries deny nationalities and minorities their rights by making religion the excuse, in the same way that the interests of democracy were and are made use of. Challenging the status quo is considered an unpardonable crime and all dominant nations consider the nationalist struggles for their liberation as waging war against God. However, this oppressive status quo has to be undone if a just world is to emerge, for unless the nationalities get their rights there will never be peace and, therefore, no progress, for keeping people under the yoke by force is an open invitation to turmoil.

The lexicon employed by states to justify their depredations and terror against people is amazingly disingenuous, and surprisingly, often enough with specious arguments, they successfully make the world at large believe them. The predator countries, proficient in effective use of words, succeed or at least temporarily convince others about the justification for their criminal actions. Words are powerful and capable of changing minds, so the oppressors’ play of words in fact plays with minds. Words are a dangerous weapon and the oppressed need to be doubly wary to ensure that they are not beguiled into believing that they are being justifiably oppressed, dispossessed and disenfranchised.

Statements from ideologists and apologists of predator states should always be examined carefully because they are often designed to deceptively convince even the oppressed about the justification for their oppression. The oppressors with shrewd use of misleading terminology subtly dictate the rules of discourse. When the oppressed accept and adopt the oppressors’ lexicon and abide by their rules in discourse, it becomes difficult for them to be forthright; this hinders and obfuscates the education of the masses whose liberation they seek. Once the direction of the discourse is dictated by the oppressor, the content naturally becomes restricted and the oppressed gradually find themselves in a position where it is impossible for them to make any headway and their arguments stall. The oppressed have to consciously avoid falling into the trap of the oppressors’ discourse rules because it limits their discussions and, consequently, their ability to educate the masses.

The oppressed should never abide by the discourse rules of the ‘establishment’, for the oppressor-dictated discourse leaves the ideologues of the oppressed floundering, which gives the oppressor an upper hand in the debate. My advice to all those writing about Baloch issues is that they avoid falling into this trap as we need not be ashamed or apologetic when demanding our rights. It should be noted that Mumia Abu Jamal is never apologetic in his protestations and, moreover, the hallmark of Frantz Fanon is that he was never apologetic in his demands for people’s rights. Consequently, theirs is the only and correct way for conducting the discourse representing the Baloch wishes on the Baloch rights.

The writer has an association with the Baloch rights movement going back to the early 1970s. He tweets at mmatalpur and can be contacted at mmatalpur@gmail.com