Divided we fall

[Tiki Tam Tam]

Tuesday, September 05, 2006 E-Mail this article to a friend Printer Friendly Version

VIEW: Divided we fall —Mohsin Hamid

What Pakistan needs is compromise: between provinces, between religion and secularism, between the desire for growth and the imperative to check inflation, between us and our neighbours. But a government led by a president in a soldier’s uniform has proven ill-suited to striking compromises

When I made a reporting trip to Balochistan in 2004, I expected to encounter strong feelings against the central government in Islamabad. Balochistan was in the grip of a low-level insurgency, with tribesmen demanding greater autonomy for the province. Just days before my trip, a roadside bomb in the fishing village of Gwadar had killed five Chinese engineers working on Pakistan’s premier development project: a massive new port. So I was surprised to see children in Gwadar playing cricket in replicas of the uniforms of Pakistan’s national team. In fact, the only hostility I encountered was from aggressive undercover security agents who questioned me rudely and threatened to seize my camera.

Afterwards, a shop owner, overhearing me complain on the phone about my treatment, invited me to his home for lunch. “The army is disrespectful to us”, he said. “They take away our young men and beat them up for no reason. We are Pakistanis, but they treat us like foreigners.” And so, in his opinion, did the central government. “None of the work on the port has gone to people from Gwadar,” he added. “They are spending billions of rupees on it, but they have not even built us a proper hospital.” Like the children playing cricket, he seemed to consider himself very much a Pakistani. But he resented Islamabad’s heavy-handed approach and the troops it deployed to enforce its policies. I left Gwadar with new sympathy for the Baloch and their desire for more say in their affairs.

Two years later, the insurgency in Balochistan has grown. And last week’s announcement by the army that it has killed Nawab Akbar Khan Bugti is a sign that the military has failed to understand that its belligerent tactics only make matters worse. Bugti was a rebel leader and a member of an oppressive class of tribal chieftains who control much of Balochistan as their personal fiefdom. But he was also a former governor of the province and a respected elder to many Baloch. His death, which has triggered unrest and rioting in Balochistan, is symbolic of our government’s refusal to address the grievances of large numbers of Pakistanis who feel ignored and marginalised by Islamabad’s policies. The Baloch, for example, believe they do not receive a fair share of the revenues from the natural gas produced in their province.

I was originally opposed to the 1999 coup that brought the president, General Pervez Musharraf, to power. But after 9/11 and the war against the Taliban in Afghanistan, he seemed to offer a steady and in some ways liberal hand during a period of great uncertainty for Pakistan. Under Musharraf, we have witnessed rapid economic growth and a soaring stock market, a liberalisation of private media outlets, and the resumption of a peace process with India. But that sense of hope is now fading. One of the legacies of seven years of rule by the army chief is a Pakistan that has become deeply divided.

The fissures are visible at multiple levels. The most obvious example is that of attack helicopters hunting down rebels in Balochistan and the Tribal Areas of our northwest frontier rebels who are our fellow citizens. But equally dangerous is the chronic failure of our provinces to agree on new dams essential to meeting our future needs for water. Or the inability of our society to channel dissent into debate, an inability that means the publication of cartoons in a newspaper in Denmark can provoke not just a response in our newspapers but also riots that transform our cities into virtual battlegrounds. The failure to bridge such divisions is particularly dangerous for Pakistan as a country with myriad ethnic and religious groups. The rich-poor divide feeds the waves of crime rocking cities like Karachi, and the ideological war between Sunni and Shia Muslims fuels domestic terrorism.

What Pakistan needs is compromise: between provinces, between religion and secularism, between the desire for growth and the imperative to check inflation, between us and our neighbours. But a government led by a president in a soldier’s uniform has proven ill-suited to striking compromises. So we must try the alternative: a return to democracy, with its inherent horse trading, messiness, and false starts. Such a transition will not be without risk, and many Pakistanis are frightened by the potential for instability. But the alternative, a continuation of the status quo, in which our president lacks the legitimacy that comes from having stood in a fair election and large segments of the country feel un-represented by the state, is even riskier.

The first challenge, of course, is to convince Musharraf to stand down at the end of his current term and allow the elections scheduled for 2007 to be free and fair. He would do well to bear in mind that the people of Gwadar want jobs and a hospital, not army check-posts. No matter how many tribal chiefs are killed, in this the people of Gwadar will never be alone.

Mohsin Hamid’s new novel, ‘The Reluctant Fundamentalist’, will be released by Harcourt and Hamish Hamilton next year

Food for thought.

One has to pause and give this article a thought.

One may disagree or agree, but he does make a case.

 

[Awesome]

Why should there be compromise between Pakistanis and people who want to divide Pakistan? We didn't compromise with Bugti and we destroyed him. His Sardars surrendered and now if we can cut off India's supply the movement's militant wing would be effectively dead.

Why should we compromise between supporters of a theocracy and secularism? That would mean legitimising the position that a Christian Pakistani is a lesser Pakistani. All are equal.

As for compromises between Provinces, that would be a lose-lose situation. We need to find win-win situations. If a dam location is not liked by one province, we should search for newer locations not cancel the project off. If someone is worried that the canals from a dam would benefit one province and take away water, then there should be regulation enforced on the canals not cut off the canals. Think win-win.

The only place there could be a mutual compromise is with our neighbour India on Kashmir since a third party, the Kashmiris are involved and we're deciding on their fate. The only compromise is that both and India and Pakistan release controlled territories and let there be a new Kashmir.

These are realities, ladies n gents. If Musharraf is strict on these then that's a good thing and there should be more people like him who'd enforce reality like him if not stronger.

The difference between this writer and Musharraf is that, the writer does not understand leadership. Leadership is not built on petty compromises. We have another term for petty compromises... "Bending over".

Fact is Musharraf got all the Sardars to surrender and killed Bugti who wouldn't. So what Balochistan insurgency, again? They called us in for a fight and then they lost... Game over.

 

[Thunder]

Yaar the trouble is that bugti was their leader, a guy who was someone to the people of baluch. Agrred that by killing him, the saradars have given up their weapons. But the whole point of this was, that baluch is being treated badly. For a provinence with the most naturla resources in pakistan, they have the lowest population, balery acsess to basic needs. I mean have you seen a area that is blessed with so many natural resources yet still remins a hell for people living there.

I am not taking sides but telling that the volinence has stopped for now, but if we don't listen to baluchis, more people will fight against us, and more muslim/pakistani blood will be wasted for no good reason. Islambad should take this chance and try to devlop baluch since it will help the whole country. :flag:

 

[Awesome]

Yeah but you're forgetting they are poor because of the Sardars not because they have not gotten their fair share. The Sardars demanded money from the government for development and said they'd do the dev themselves. If the government didn't pay they'd create trouble.

This is an undeniable fact and went on in Pakistan for decades. Now Musharraf didn't pay up and the chief benefactors of the old system didn't like it. By eliminating the Sardars the Baloch would get stuff directly from the government, in whom they should trust, not some rag tag feudal who they have to treat as God at gun point.

 

[Sid]

Why should there be compromise between Pakistanis and people who want to divide Pakistan? We didn't compromise with Bugti and we destroyed him. His Sardars surrendered and now if we can cut off India's supply the movement's militant wing would be effectively dead.

Why should we compromise between supporters of a theocracy and secularism? That would mean legitimising the position that a Christian Pakistani is a lesser Pakistani. All are equal.

As for compromises between Provinces, that would be a lose-lose situation. We need to find win-win situations. If a dam location is not liked by one province, we should search for newer locations not cancel the project off. If someone is worried that the canals from a dam would benefit one province and take away water, then there should be regulation enforced on the canals not cut off the canals. Think win-win.

The only place there could be a mutual compromise is with our neighbour India on Kashmir since a third party, the Kashmiris are involved and we're deciding on their fate. The only compromise is that both and India and Pakistan release controlled territories and let there be a new Kashmir.

These are realities, ladies n gents. If Musharraf is strict on these then that's a good thing and there should be more people like him who'd enforce reality like him if not stronger.

The difference between this writer and Musharraf is that, the writer does not understand leadership. Leadership is not built on petty compromises. We have another term for petty compromises... "Bending over".

Fact is Musharraf got all the Sardars to surrender and killed Bugti who wouldn't. So what Balochistan insurgency, again? They called us in for a fight and then they lost... Game over.

Perhaps, you can explain the two-day old 'agreement'/ceasefire with the Taliban militants that the Pakistani government has struck? In my dictionary, that would amount to a compromise.

 

[blain2]

Perhaps, you can explain the two-day old 'agreement'/ceasefire with the Taliban militants that the Pakistani government has struck? In my dictionary, that would amount to a compromise.

The problem with the Baloch sardars is that they are stopping a major development project which bodes well for the entire of Pakistan. There can be flexibility in FATA but not in Balochistan owing to the importance of Gwader's strategic port. The GoP was willing to consider the recommendations made to it by Mushahid Hussain (an advisor to the Govt), yet the Bugtis have this "my way or the highway" sort of an approach that led to the current situation. In the past, the only way to get around the problem was to give in to Bugti's demands. In this case, he was not allowing the govt to setup military cantonements which was not acceptable to the government.

The govt is going ahead with its multi-billion investment and putting in roads, schools and hospitals etc. to counter the ill-effects of the fall out of Bugti's death which probably was not the best conclusion to this sordid affair, but given the fact that Bugti saheb had taken the gun, it was also a possibility that he was going to die by it.

 

[sparten]

The problem will be solved, it will take time. Thats all. I still remember 1989 in Karachi, every scribbler in Pakistan was sure that the place was going to breakaway. It did not, and he insurgency was quelled. nd Karachi is today peceful.

It was a lot worse than Balochistan.