Balochistan: Past imperfect, future tense

Prime Minister Narendra Modi is the first foreign leader to put the spotlight on Pakistan’s human rights record in Balochistan. It was high time that someone of the stature of the Indian Prime Minister raised an issue over which Pakistan has succeeded in drawing a veil of silence.   As the prominent Pakistani writer Ahmed Rashid, who spent a decade as a participant in the Baloch insurgency in the 1970s, wrote in 2014, “So many journalists have been killed in Balochistan that there are few honest reports from the province in the national print and electronic media. The story of this bloody civil war is going untold.”   The current insurgency which began in 2003 is the fifth since the state of Kalat was annexed by Pakistan in March 1948. Formally the ruler of the state Mir Ahmed Yar Khan, the Khan of Kalat, signed the instrument of accession to merge his state with Pakistan. However, he was coerced to do so through the use of aggression and subversion ordered by Mohammad Ali Jinnah himself.   Baloch nationalists have never accepted the annexation and have resisted it for almost seven decades. They have viewed the annexation as Punjabi domination and assault on their way of life and the exploitation of their natural resources.   Baloch alienation has been compounded by the blatant use of violence, torture and killings which have marked the response of the Pakistan state to the forces of Baloch nationalism. This process has continued despite the rulings of the superior courts of Pakistan against the “disappearances” of Baloch activists and in many cases the discovery of their mutilated bodies just dumped in public places.   Successive Pakistan Governments have tried persuasion, coercion, deception and other stratagems to deal with Baloch nationalists. They have never succeeded because the Baloch were ignored when the Khan of Kalat was made to sign the instrument of accession. How did all this happen and is there a chance of the issue being permanently resolved? For an assessment it is necessary to briefly turn to the history of Kalat, its relations with the British and the circumstances of its annexation.   Kalat state was established in 1666 in Balochistan and its territories waxed and waned over the centuries. Its rulers were in subordinate alliance at times with the Afghans, Persians and the Mughals. The British signed a treaty with the Khan of Kalat for the first time in 1839 and many since then. The most significant, from the viewpoint of the events of 1947-48, was the 1876 treaty which Kalat interpreted as one between equals, but for the British Kalat accepted a subordinate position.   The foremost authority on the amalgamation of the princely states of Pakistan into the Pakistan federation is a young Pakistani scholar Yakub Khan Bangash. He dwells on Kalat's accession in his book, “A Princely Affair”. Bangash notes that the nature of Kalat state defied traditional classification and as such the Khan could not act on his own without consultation with his chiefs. Besides, within the state were also the principalities of Las Bela, Kharran, and Mekran with their own rulers but with the Khan as suzerain.   Bangash notes that Kalat claimed that its status was not that of an Indian princely state -- a feudatory of the British monarch -- but that of an “independent prince” as Viceroy Lord Lytton categorised him in 1877. However, in the decades since then the British started treating him as the monarch of an Indian feudatory on par with the princely states of India.   It is noteworthy that the British had leased land from Kalat along the Afghan and Iran borders and set up important military garrisons, the main in Quetta.The leased land along with the territories the British acquired from the Afghans after the treaty of Gandamak formed British Balochistan.   Ahmed Yar Khan became the Khan in 1933 and focussed on the status of Kalat as it became clear that the British would withdraw from the Indian subcontinent because of the strength acquired by Indian nationalism. He wanted to become independent on the departure of the British and urged his status through Jinnah, his lawyer, as late as 1946. He also wanted that the leased territories be returned to Kalat.   When it was decided that India would be partitioned, Jinnah desired that Pakistan should control the Kalat leased territories. He also wanted to ensure that it acceded to Pakistan. For the first purpose he had to treat its status in accordance with the assertion of the Khan; the reason being that the British had enacted that all Indian princely states would regain sovereignty on August 15. Thus the leased land would automatically revert to the Khan.   In early August 1947 the “Government” of Pakistan announced that it “recognises Kalat is an independent sovereign state in treaty relations with the British Government; with a status different from that of Indian states”. This assurance in which Mountbatten played an essential part was solely for the purpose of retaining the leased territories with Pakistan for they were of crucial strategic significance.   Clearly the British involvement in this exercise shows that prior to the creation of Pakistan they had decided that the new state would be critical to their policy of retaining a foothold in the sub-continent for the eventual confrontation with the Soviet Union which was becoming increasingly probable by that time.   Immediately after Pakistan came into being on August 14, the assurance of Kalat’s independence was ignored by Jinnah. He now demanded that Kalat should accede to Pakistan just as Indian princely states were doing. The Khan, backed by the Kalat Parliament, rejected the demand but agreed to have treaty relations for friendship and cooperation on the basis of equality.   Jinnah rejected this proposal. Thus it was clear that the position taken by Jinnah, backed by Mountbatten, in early August was plainly deceptive and duplicitous, a practice followed by Pakistan in its external relations ever since.   Over the seven months that passed between Pakistan’s creation and the annexation of Kalat, Jinnah whom ironically the Khan considered as a well wisher and friend, first pushed him and then broke up the state and finally moved forces in a virtual military action.   The breaking up of the state was through recognising the independence of Las Bela, Kharran and Makran, feudatories of the Khan, and thereafter making them sign instruments of accession. Once this was done Pakistani forces entered their territory to deny Kalat access to the sea.   Finally in end-March 1948 the Khan gave way. The immediate cause of the Khan’s surrender was an announcement over All India Radio that Kalat had approached India to explore accession to it. This was denied by both the Khan and Nehru but there are reasons to believe that Kalat did approach Delhi.   The annexation of Kalat was secured by Pakistan but the Khan had acted alone in signing the instrument of accession. The traditions of the state demanded that he could do so only with the concurrence of the people. Consequently Baloch nationalists, including the Khan’s brother, rejected the accession. That position continues today too.   In an important article in 2011 Bangash explored the roots of the Baloch discontent and insurgency. He asserted that the accession lacked the “force of moral and political authority”. He went further to argue that, “The longevity of their struggle is a sign that this is a not a small fanatical movement but a struggle that has its roots in a historic wrong”. Bangash concluded by advocating that Pakistan must give the Baloch “concrete incentives to be in the federation of Pakistan or else accept their right of self-determination”.   Thus it is truly the Balochistan issue is the unfinished agenda of the partition of India. No wonder the Baloch nationalists have reacted so enthusiastically to Modi’s nuanced observation on Pakistan’s human rights record in the province.   Perhaps the facts of Balochistan's annexation now need to be brought out through a conference on the subject by an Indian think-tank.  

Disclaimer: The opinions, beliefs and views expressed by the various authors and forum participants on this website are personal and do not reflect the opinions, beliefs and views of ABP News Network Pvt Ltd.