By Agha Iqrar Haroon
Whatever is going on in Balochistan is portrayed as “a struggle” by those who are doing it and “a foreign conspiracy” by those who are trying to mitigate it. Practically, there is no third standpoint over Balochistan available historically and politically.
This writer has no third viewpoint either; however, sharing some interesting information already available in academic books can be useful for readers. There is one stimulating observation this writer wishes to share is that neither the government nor state-funded think tanks are initiating academic discussions over Baluchistan’s sensitive situation and the alleged involvement of Afghanistan, India, sardars, and reactionary forces.
Recently, while browsing certain documents, this writer went through some writings of Sashanka S Banerjee, a retired Indian Diplomat. He is the author of several books, including “India, Mujibur Rahman, Bangladesh Liberation and Pakistan” (A political treatise). He was posted in London during 1971-72. He claimed that Abdus Samad Azad, Bangladesh’s leader, organised a meeting that took place at the Charing Cross Hotel near Trafalgar Square in London on December 16, 1971—the day Bangladesh achieved independence. This secret conclave, referred to as the “London Club,” was attended by prominent Baloch leaders, including Khair Bakhsh Marri, Ataullah Mengal, and Nawab Akbar Khan Bugti. The assembly deliberated on the prospect of Balochistan’s liberation from Pakistan, drawing parallels with Bangladesh’s recent secession. Sashanka’s claimed consolidated information already available in Indian books that late Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi after defeating Pakistan in “Operation Jackpot (Bangladesh separation) ordered Indian Army to get ready for “Operation Surprise” (independence of Balochistan) but Indian army chief Sam Manekshaw refused to take assignment stating that Balochistan did not border with India so there can not be the army action and he suggeted that she (Indira Gandhi) should call intelligence chiefs to handle this assignment.
According to some 1973 cabinet members of Bhutto, the information was shared with Bhutto with a suggestion to dismantle provincial governments of the then NWFP (KP now) and Balochistan as information confirmed that Afghanistan’s government was actively supporting insurgency in NWFP and Balochistan. In February 1973, Bhutto dismissed the NAP-led government. The government further claimed that a raid on the Iraqi embassy in Islamabad had uncovered a cache of arms intended for Baloch rebels. This provided the official justification for a widespread crackdown, which soon escalated into a full-blown armed insurgency.
Information gathered from some former military and civil intelligence top officials, this writer has reason to believe that Bhutto was also briefed that Sardar Daud Khan who seized power in Afghanistan was actively supporting Baloch rebels by providing arms, training, and logistical support. Indian operatives maintained liaison offices along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border to facilitate the transfer of weapons and financial assistance. By supporting dissident groups in Balochistan, Daud Khan aimed to undermine Pakistan’s control over its western regions and advance the broader cause of Pashtunistan. This information should be reviewed through a declassified British Foreign Office memoranda (1974–1976) that says:
“Afghan authorities under President Daud Khan have pursued a policy of providing refuge to dissident groups opposing Pakistani centralisation, a move that is viewed as part of a broader strategy to challenge Pakistani hegemony in the region.”
U.S. State Department cables (1974) say:
“Pakistan has expressed concerns over Afghan support for Baloch separatists, noting that safe havens in Afghanistan are prolonging the insurgency”
This information is enough to understand why Afghanistan is still a launching pad of terrorism against Pakistan and Afghanistan’s direct support to BLA and other separatist organizations of Balochistan because Kabul always considers a strong and prosperous Pakistan as a threat to Afghanistan.
Sensing the gravity of the situation, Bhutto, on May 19, 1976, introduced “THE SYSTEM OF SARDARI (ABOLITION) ACT” for clamping the powers of Sardari system (Chieftains) of Balochistan. When the roots of a system that was exploitative, anti-people, and anti-Pakistan were shaken, and the status quo was challenged, the vested interests sharply reacted against Bhutto. Just after one year of this historic move of the government of Pakistan, Martial law was clamped in Pakistan in 1977, and the hatred for Bhutto, who abolished the Sardari system, was used for political manipulation in Balochistan.
By 1985, almost all Sardars came into power through 1985 party-less elections, and the British arranged the Sardari system got firm hold of the province under new brand —–the Political Sardari System. This outworn system pitted against the helpless and voiceless public, and no genuine leadership ever emerged in Balochistan. The children of Sardars were inducted in civil services through the quota system, giving total control on power structure to Sardars and their families and the powers of the privileged classes would continue in perpetuity. They claimed the mountains and the valleys to be theirs, and their power overshadowed the power of the state of Pakistan as the state followed the same modus operandi that was left by the British Raj —empowering the Sardari system, pleasing them, and granting public resources at their disposal.
A researcher and academician, Gul Khan Naseer, in his book Tareek-e-Balochistan, mentions that Sir Robert Sandeman introduced a new administration of the Khanate of Kalat. On August 1, 1876, Sandeman, on the wishes of Sardars and with the consultation and authorization of Khan, recommended a method for running the Balochistan administration. Khan authorized it and promulgated orders for its future implementation. As per the new method of governance, the civil administration was divided into four parts: (i) collection of taxes, (ii) civil cases, (iii) Criminal cases, and (iv) Aid and assistance of civil officers through the army. In a civil matter, where the parties to the case are from the tribe, then the concerned Sardar or Sardars would have the jurisdiction to decide the case, but where the claimant is a tribesman and the defendant a resident of the Khanate of Kalat. Still, from not a tribesman, then the case would be in the jurisdiction of ‘Naib’ to decide. On the contrary, where the claimant is an alien or non-resident of the Khanate of Kalat and the defendant is a tribe member, such a case would be for the concerned Sardar to decide. However, in all situations and circumstances, the appeal would have lied to the Khan and whose decision would be final. The primary purpose of introducing the changes was to firmly establish and secure British interest in the frontier of the British India Empire in Balochistan. Khanate of Kalat was based on a feudal system in which the Khan of Kalat ruled over all the Sardars (tribal chiefs) of the tribes, who in turn ruled over the tribe members. Sandeman wanted a federal state or confederacy, where Khan exercised specific power of external affairs, and internally, Sardars were the real power holders with little control of Khan over them. He introduced certain institutions to implement and achieve his goals and intentions; the prominent one was Jirga. After this system had been implemented, nobody could raise a finger against Sardars, and Jirga was under the total control of the Sardar and Nawab families. This very brief history mentioned above is helpful to understand why Sardars, Maliks, and Nawabs still consider that the land (resources) under their feet belongs to them and why they do not like the modern state of Pakistan. They always work slowly but firmly to weaken the state of Pakistan and since 1976, created reactionaries, Fararis and several other anti-modern state elements and ironically with the help of finance resources the state of Pakistan rendered them. Now, all the powers of the reactionaries, the Sardars and the Nawabs, have been collected together by the enemies who do not want a prosperous Balochistan from where the Chinese flagship project CPEC can go without any problem. The recent tug of power and, at the same time the collaboration between Mahrang and Akhtar Mengal is quite interesting.
One can ask questions that all the chieftains of Balochistan who have taken an oath under the Constitution of Pakistan recognize the Constitution of Pakistan. If they recognize the Constitution of Pakistan, then they recognize the State of Pakistan. If they recognize the State of Pakistan, then how can they be the spokesperson of the Baloch Solidarity Council, or how can they represent Mahrang Baloch? The answer is given above that since 1976 Baloch chieftains had been power banks of reactionary forces behind the scene. Yes, there can be a soft infighting between anti-statement elements such as Mahrang Baloch and Akhtar Mengal for the time being because product is one and seller are two—the product is destabilization in Balochistan and both want to sell it with their brand names to foreign masters. This can be considered a business rivalry and nothing more. Some members of the Baloch Solidarity Committee have expressed strong concern over self-serving characters like Akhtar Mengal and Bahram Bugti using the Baloch Solidarity Committee forum to shine their politics. These members say that Akhtar Mengal is using the Baloch Solidarity Committee’s shoulder to revive his sinking politics and is trying to hijack the organization by creating a narrative of support for Mahrang Lango. These innocent members do not know that Baloch Solidarity Committee sardars were behind reactionary forces such as Baloch Solidarity Committee, and innocent youth was just used by sardars and their pawns such as Mahrang Baloch.
Whosoever wants to read between the lines about what is going on in Balochistan should read a history of the last 50 years to understand the role of Afghanistan, India, Sardars, and the reactionary elements created by Sardars. People such as Akhtar Mengal or Mahrang Baloch are just puppets and new faces in old theatre.
