Daily Times

Recently, I came across a piece in the Saudi Gazette of April 2014 titled ‘Balochistan and the unity of Pakistan’ by one Dr Ali Al-Ghamdi, a former Saudi diplomat claiming to specialise in Southeast Asian affairs. It made me wonder what interest a former Saudi diplomat would have in Balochistan but then I realised this was an attempt to make the theory that religion was the basis of nationhood sound credible and acceptable.
He, after repeating the mantra that Pakistan had been created for the Muslims of the subcontinent, laments that some internal and external forces were not satisfied or convinced about the creation of the new entity and started exploiting and exaggerating some of the problems involved in its creation. He feels that among some there was a lack of religious faith and national sentiment on which Pakistan was founded and that some people cherished regional sentiments; these problems he says led to the creation of Bangladesh. The Saudis and Pakistani elite expect people to forsake their centuries’ old cultures and histories for religion.
He then accuses the Baloch Liberation Army (BLA) of “crossing the red line” by threatening Pakistan’s national unity not only by involvement in subversive acts within but also by establishing a rapport with external forces, especially the US. He exposes his ignorance by terming Agha Sulaiman Dawood, the Khan of Kalat, as the tribal head of the BLA. He says that a neighbouring country — he does not specify which — had agreed to bear the two million dollar cost of appeal in the International Court of Justice (ICJ) but when that did not materialise they approached a US congressmen and three congressmen tabled a bill before the US Congress stating that: “Balochistan is currently divided between Pakistan, Iran and Afghanistan with no sovereign rights of its own.” And that in Pakistan it is subjected to violence, extrajudicial killing and displacement, with the Baloch demanding the right to self-determination. He then thanks the US government for distancing itself from independent Balochistan. He should be thankful to them for sending troops to Saudi Arabia during the 1990-1991 Gulf War.
After thanking the US he then expresses fear that the US request for a consulate in Quetta is aimed at facilitating the activities of organisations striving to create unrest in Pakistan. This he feels will be in retribution for Pakistan harbouring Osama bin Laden in Abbottabad. He thinks that the Tea Party congressmen are working for independent Balochistan. He accuses India of financing the insurgents and also seems to know that that money goes into the pockets of tribal leaders. He fears that if the Republican Party wins the US elections there will be a surge of violence in Balochistan.
He then suggests solutions to the Balochistan problem with his six points. One, he wants the media to highlight “political initiative to address the situation in Balochistan, such as holding elections and the formation of an elected government there to reduce insurgency”. Two, he wants to end foreign intervention even if it is from US congressmen as it contravenes international laws. He forgets the Saudi intervention in Bahrain for bloody repression of the Shias.
Three, he wants the media to expose the Tea Party members’ hypocrisy under the pretext of defending human rights in Balochistan. Four, he says those demanding independence are a small group who have no support of the people and they look to outside forces for support. Five, he asserts that “the people of Balochistan are patriotic and they want peace, justice and democracy to prevail”, He does not know that the Baloch have continued to fight since the forced annexation on March 27, 1948. Six, he declares that Pakistan will not allow any group of adventurers who live abroad to undermine the nation’s safety and security, as well as to forfeit any part of the country.
He assumes the role of a Pakistani government representative and is blind to the abductions and killing of the Baloch. He does not see the red lines crossed by the Pakistani establishment in atrocities against the Baloch nor does he see the blood that has been shed. This Saudi interest in Balochistan does not auger well for the Baloch because the motives are ulterior. The Mirani Dam in Balochistan was built so that the land irrigated by it would be sold to some Gulf country. Saudi Arabia, along with the UAE, is among the biggest land buyers in Africa. On April 29, 2009, the then federal minister for investment, Waqar Ahmed Khan, disclosed that there are “one million acres of farmland, protected by a special security force, for lease or sale to countries seeking to secure their food supplies” He added, “Pakistan’s government is now in talks with Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Bahrain and other Arab states.” Then he added that parliament would provide investors with legislative cover to protect them from changes in government. Significantly, he also said, “It (the ministry) will also hire a new security force of 100,000 men to be split among the country’s provinces to help stabilise the investment environment” and “will cost us about two billion rupees to pay the salaries and train these people who will be from local towns and provinces.” This sum, he said, was being sought from donors. In November 2010, the Balochistan revenue department prepared a summary for selling about 70,000 hectares of land in Lasbela district to Arab princes for hunting and setting up their private buildings and airport. This plan was shelved due to the opposition of locals.
Interestingly, Sindh is 140,914 square kilometers with a population of 216 individuals per square kilometer and is very fertile, while Balochistan is 347,190 square kilometers with a population density of only 18.9 individuals. Khyber Pakhtunkhwa is 74,521 square kilometers with a population density of 2,38.1 individuals and Punjab is 205,345 square kilometers with a population density of 3,58.5 individuals. Punjab’s agriculture minister had earlier confirmed that 600,000 acres offered in Cholistan were rejected due to brackish water. These factors make Balochistan and Sindh prime candidates for the Gulf States’ hunger for land. Such a deal would make a quick buck for the rulers and, at the same time, undermine the existing political, economic, social and demographic balance in Balochistan, jeopardising Baloch rights even further. The Baloch resent their land and their rights being taken away either by Pakistan or its Chinese and Saudi friends, and will resist anyone crossing these red lines.

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