Story Behind Balochistan

[Kashif]

Four correspondents and dozens of associates who collectively logged more than 5000 kilometers during the past seven weeks in pursuit of a single question – What is happening in Balochistan? – have only been able to uncover small parts of the entire picture.
As Pakistan and India continue to mend fences, as Iran, Pakistan and India try to pool efforts to put a shared gas pipeline, as Pakistan, Afghanistan and Turkmenistan join hands to lay a natural gas pipeline of great economic and strategic importance, as the United States continues to laud the role of Pakistan as a frontline nation in war against terrorism, as Chinese contractors forge ahead with construction work in Gwadar port and on trans-Balochistan highway, as the Pakistan government makes efforts to bring Balochistan under the rule of law and eliminate safe havens for terrorists and drug barons, as the whole region tries to develop new long-term models to curb terrorism and bring prosperity to far flung areas, there is a deadly game going on in the barren and hostile hills of Balochistan. Liens are muddy; there are no clear-cut sectors to distinguish friends from foes.

Right in the beginning we would like to clarify that when we say Indians, we mean some Indians and not the Indian government because we don’t have any way of ascertaining whether the activities of some Indian nationals in Pakistan represent the official policy of their government or is it merely the adventurism of some individuals or organizations. When we say Iranians or Afghans, we mean just that: Some Iranians or Afghans. We don’t even know whether the Iranian and Afghan players in Balochistan are trying to serve the interests of their countries or whether their loyalties lie elsewhere.

Question: What was the purpose of Russian invasion of Afghanistan?

Misha: The Soviet Union was not in love with Afghanistan itself and by now everyone must have understood it. We, or at least our leaders, wanted a convenient corridor to the warm waters of the Indian Ocean -- the idea was to first establish full control in Kabul and from there to raise the double-bogey of Pakhtunistan and Greater Balochistan and try to detach at least a part of Balochistan from Pakistan and to either merge it as a new province of Afghanistan or to create a new country that should be under the firm control of Moscow. That would have solved most of the problems facing Kremlin.

Question: If the Americans are interested in creating safe channel for shipping energy resources through Balochistan, why would they encourage trouble there?

Misha: That is for now. By inciting trouble, they would effectively discourage Trans-Afghan Pipeline or any other project that is intended for sending Central Asian resources to South Asia. They are not interested in strengthening the South Asian economies by allowing them to obtain sensibly priced oil and gas. They would be more interested in taking all they can to their own country and let everyone else starve if that is the choice.

Sasha: The Americans would also like to discourage China from entering into more development projects in Balochistan than it already has. By developing the port and roads in Balochistan, China is ultimately helping itself by creating a convenient conduit for commerce that would connect China concurrently with Central Asia, South Asia, and all-weather Balochistan ports. The space is limited – where China gains, America loses, and where America gains, China loses.

Questions: OK. This sounds plausible. But what interest could Russia have in helping Pentagon in this trouble-Balochistan project?

Sasha: Russia has its own policy goals and as far as the present phase of creating trouble in Balochistan is concerned, American and Russian goals are not in conflict with each other. Russia wants to maintain its monopoly over all the energy resources of Central Asia. At present, the Central Asian countries are dependent entirely on Russia for export of their gas project succeeds, it would open the floodgates of exodus. Central Asian countries would understandably rush to the market that pays 100% in cash and pays better price than Russia. It is therefore very clear that by keeping Balochistan red hot, Russia can hope to discourage Trans-Afghan pipeline or any other similar projects. Russian economy in its present form is based on the monopoly of Gazprom and if Gazprom goes under, so will the Russian economy at some stage.

Question: So far, there is some in sense what you have said but how would explain Indian involvement in the Balochistan revolt?

Sasha: India has its own perceived or real objectives. For instance, India would go to great lengths to prevent Pakistan from developing a direct trade and transportation route with Central Asia because it would undermine the North-South corridor that goes through Iran. Also, while the acute shortage of energy may have compelled India to extend limited cooperation to Pakistan, the preferable project from Indian point of view still remains the Iran-Pakistan-India gas pipeline.

Misha: Moreover, you cannot ignore the fact that India is preparing to use Afghanistan as its main artery system to connect with Central Asia and it would not allow Pakistan to share this sphere if it can.

Question: What about Iran? Why should Iran be a party to it?

Misha: Iran has incurred great expenses to develop Chah Bahar, the port that is supposed to be the Iranian answer to Pakistani ports of Gwadar and Pasni. Iran has also done lot of work to create excellent road link between Herat and Chah Bahar. All this would go to waste if Pakistani route comes on line because it is shorter and offers quick commuting possibilities between Central Asia and Indian Ocean.

Sasha: At the same time you need to allow certain margin of unreliability when dealing with Iran. You cannot be sure whether they mean what they are saying and you cannot be sure whether they would keep their promises. They do what suits them best and to hell with any commitments. I am sorry but that is how I judge Iran.

Question: While both of you have given some explanation of American, Russian, Iranian and Indian involvement in Balochistan, what is the role of Afghanistan?

Sasha: There are many influential circles in Afghanistan that are deadly opposed to Pakistan for one reason or the other. While Afghanistan as a country may not be harboring any ill will against Pakistan, it is difficult to rule out the possibility that some power circles would not be inclined to damage Pakistan wherever they can. It is clear from the recent developments that as India, Iran and Afghanistan have made great strides to form some kind of economic, trade and transportation alliance, all efforts have been made to exclude Pakistan from any such deal.



If you want to see the full article please visit the link:
http://www.#Not Allowed#/archives/200503/P1_bla.htm


Its really intresting to hear that many countries have their intrests in Balochistan but Pakistan is committed to make Balochistan trouble free

 

[EagleEyes]

The Balochistan is in control of Pakistan. Except for few areas like Waziristan where Taliban have dominated due to that they had relations with the people who lived in that area.

As Pakistan have supported war on terror, the same people are now against Pakistani government for doing that. Pakistani government have discussed them to stop supporting them, but the relations are very close now, some of them have even married and settled there for a long time now.

There are also some Wazirs and Local Government who rule their, like dictators. They have no court, they decide what they want to do, and those are the places where rape incident occur or really stupid and shameful incidents occur.

Balochistan is a part of Pakistan, and it will never be seperated. If you listen to Musharraf's speech you will know what he has planned to do with them, and he is doing it, everything he can to eliminated who oppose the government, and try to stop the modern Pakistan. Being modern is beneficial for Pakistan. The infrastructure and social life will be greatly improved, and they same people will have proper education.

 

[VisionHawk]

Except for few areas like Waziristan where Taliban have dominated due to that they had relations with the people who lived in that area.

Waziristan is in Nwfp it is a part of FEDERALLY ADMINISTRATED AREA (FATA) i myself belong to Fata . it is not in Balochistan

They only area in balochistan which is unsatisfied with the gov is DERA BUgti its a small town it is better if u call it a village they are basically AFGHANI by origin who came to Pak in the mid 80s after which they were sent to exile during ZIA `s rule for been involving in anti Pak activities and relations with Raw . They again came to Pak during BEnazir rule but this time they had sophisticated weapons from rocket launchers to handy grenades . They use these weapons to control local population and make a militia numbering from 2000 to 3000. These malitias were regularly given a pay of 6000 thousand Rupees . Soon the local people rose against them who had taken their lands and even some gas fields FC frontier force took strict measures against them and now most of them are in prison beside NAWAB BUGTI who call himself as a politician now :bat: and is trying to win the support oif the people now .

During the elections Pakistan `s ruling party Muslim League won the majority of the seats and votes in Balochistan .

 

[EagleEyes]

Waziristan is in Nwfp it is a part of FEDERALLY ADMINISTRATED AREA (FATA) i myself belong to Fata . it is not in Balochistan

I looked at the map myself on the Geo T.V. It was in Balochistan. There was one North Waziristan and South Waziristan located in the west nearly bordering with Afghanistan. Well thanks for clearing it up, you know it better.

 

[Spring Onion]

i dont know how on earth Geo T.V showed such a map with Waziristan as a part of Balochistan but it would be better to clear that Waziristan is not in Balochistan and the fomenters of trouble there have no connection with the problem in Balochistan.
So ur comments realy surprised me.

 

[EagleEyes]

India is trying to discourage a sort of unity we have, and patriotism we have to fight for our country. In this matter they are really crap, no one wants to join the IAF, they are recruiting hard to get the people in, but the people of India dont want to risk their lives with such a low pay.

I see an advantage for Pakistan when attacking India, fighting with hindus will be a lot easier, but i see a thoughness against Rajputs and Sikhs, they will fight until the end. So for that matter first all out offensive attack in the future shall be against the Rajputs and Sikh units.

 

[Neo]

Balochistan is getting way too much negative attention in the international media thanks to our neighbors.
It's in our national interest to end the surgency asap, even if it means that the military has to go in.
As far as I know, only the para military is involved in Balochistan but the situation is getting worse by the day.
I hope Musharraf can end the insurgency while he's still in power, coz its way to big to handle for a future civilian government as they will not seek a military solution to end the conflict.

 

[Zeeshan S.]

Originally posted by Neo@Feb 2 2006, 03:18 PM
Balochistan is getting way too much negative attention in the international media thanks to our neighbors.
It's in our national interest to end the surgency asap, even if it means that the military has to go in.
As far as I know, only the para military is involved in Balochistan but the situation is getting worse by the day.
I hope Musharraf can end the insurgency while he's still in power, coz its way to big to handle for a future civilian government as they will not seek a military solution to end the conflict.

[post=5835]Quoted post[/post]​

Even worst if MMA comes into power. Imagine what will happen then!

 

[abhishek]

Originally posted by WebMaster@Feb 1 2006, 08:04 PM
India is trying to discourage a sort of unity we have, and patriotism we have to fight for our country. In this matter they are really crap, no one wants to join the IAF, they are recruiting hard to get the people in, but the people of India dont want to risk their lives with such a low pay.

I see an advantage for Pakistan when attacking India, fighting with hindus will be a lot easier, but i see a thoughness against Rajputs and Sikhs, they will fight until the end. So for that matter first all out offensive attack in the future shall be against the Rajputs and Sikh units.

[post=5812]Quoted post[/post]​

Hey Webby this is not fair.
Image of Hindu is very much dominated by Image of High cast Baniya's and Brahmins .which generally dominates admin,business and goverment in India and abroad.
But Indian defence forces are not dominated by these casts,Indian defence forces generaly dominated by AJGR(Ahir, Jat,Gujar,Rajput) and Sikhs about 80% of defence forces consists of these casts/cult.basicaly all these five cults are known as fighters in ancient history but sadly they fight in themselfs in history.because of this britishers have used all these five cast very well 'divide and rule' policy.
I know it is hard to understand but it is like this only.

 

[Neo]

Originally posted by mysterious@Feb 3 2006, 06:43 AM
Even worst if MMA comes into power. Imagine what will happen then!

[post=5878]Quoted post[/post]​

I don't find it very amusing.
Please elaborate

 

[Spring Onion]

Even worst if MMA comes into power. Imagine what will happen then!


Well i dont understand whats ammusing about it, Secondly if u had some knowledge about the background of the issue i hope u had never given this comment. i have written an artilce on the issue recently and hope will send it to the forum soon i wanted to highlight this MMA factor in it but thn thought the forum might ban me for commenting on India.
Now i tell you something that analyists (read those who are attached with the secret agencies) of our neighbouring country had been trying to sugget ways to the top strategists for convencing fomenters of trouble in Balochistan to have support of religious parties. However fortunatly thanks to Almighty there is no love between MMA and the baloch nationlaits as the latter see an end to their illegal reign in the province in case MMA got in which definetly would affect the power of Sardars as nationalism is more dangerouse and harmful thn extremism.

 

[Nasir]

Will Baluchistan fighting lead to its separation?

By M V Kamath | Sunday, 19 February , 2006, 09:36

Baluchistan is again in the news, but for the wrong reasons. Truth to tell, it has not been as much in the news as it should have been. And it is somewhat intriguing that a civil war now being fought in Pakistan’s largest, and most alienated province, is not being covered fully, either by the Western news agencies or by the media, both in Pakistan and in India. The silence of the Western news agencies is particularly stunning and suggests a deal between them and President Pervez Musharraf’s government in Pakistan. The current war, now being fought, is the fifth of its kind.

Baluchistan’s third civil war began in 1962 and ended in 1968 and was fought between Baluch tribals—Muslims all—and Pakistan’s para-military forces. It ended, expectedly, with the Baluchs taking huge losses in livestock through shelling and air attacks. This, as Stephen Philip Cohen once noted, was merely a prelude to a far bloodier war at the peak of Baluchi separatism during the insurrection of 1973-75.

This, the forth war, had been sparked by then Premier Zulfiqar Ali Butto’s dismissal of two local administrators, namely the powerful and respected Mir Ghaus Baksh Bizengo and Sardar Ataullah Khan Mengal, on grounds that they were arming their followers.

The Baluchs could only field some 1,000 guerrillas armed with ancient rifles. But the Baluch casualties were three times that number, while 7,000 Baluch families were forced to take refuge in Afghanistan. The current war, the fifth of its kind, began, innocuously in January 2003 when four Pakistani soldiers were alleged to have raped a doctor employed by Pakistan Petroleum at the gas field believed to be among the largest of its kind in the world. When the authorities failed to file a case, Bugti tribesmen attacked the gas field, but the fighting tapered off.

About that time, Musharraf issued a warning that if the insurgents continued fighting, he will hit them so hard “they won’t know what hit them”. That comment did not help matters. The latest eruption of warfare started when the Baluchis made a rocket attack on a rally held by Musharraf in the town of Kohlu, last month. A day later, according to reports, insurgents opened fire on a helicopter carrying the Inspector General of the Frontier Corps Baluchistan, Major General Shujaat Zamir Dar and his deputy.

What followed was routine. Pakistan’s Frontier Corps, backed by helicopter gunships launched a full-scale attack on the insurgents and one can be assured that when the fighting ceases—if it ceases—there will be heavy Baluchi casualties. India, which usually maintains a discreet silence, last month, expressed concern over what is going on in Baluchistan only to be told by Pakistan to mind its own business.

Pakistan’s Interior Minister Aftab Ahemed Sherpao charged India with “supporting the miscreants” and Pakistan’s former army chief Aslam Beg and a former chief of ISI, Gen Hamid Gel (retd) went further to charge both India and the US with fomenting trouble in Baluchistan.

“The terrorists who are fighting in Baluchistan are friends of India and foes of Pakistan. That is the only reason the Indian Government has expressed concern against military operations in the province,” Gul said.

In the first place, may it be said that India’s official comment has been the minimal. In the second place, there is no reason why India should not make any comment considering that Pakistan has been actively interfering with India’s internal affairs in Jammu and Kashmir since 1946. Indeed, though India has not been helping the Baluchi rebels with arms and equipment, it would be entirely within its rights considering what jihad forces have been doing in Jammu & Kashmir.

It is about time India made that clear to Islamabad. But it pays for Pakistan to make wild and vile charges against Delhi. Thus Musharraf himself told the TV Channel CNN-IBN that India was providing the Baluchi nationalist forces, which he said were “anti-government and anti-me”, with “financial support and support in kind”. Nawab Akbar Khan Bugti, who is now leading the Baluchi insurgents, has ridiculed this.

He told The Hindu in a telephonic interview: “What is the need for us to take anything from anyone? The weapons we are now using flowed into this region when the United States financed the jihad in Afghanistan. It was the Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) which distributed them to Afghanistan, Iran, Jammu and Kashmir, and to us in Baluchistan.”

Apparently the ISI-distributed weapons are easy to get, besides being cheap in the bargain. The point, however, to be noted is that Baluchi tribal leaders are fighting on their own and don’t need Indian support. They have been fighting consistently in the past because they have a distinct culture and tradition and an autonomous history that does not permit Pakistan, in essence Punjabi, military dominance.

As in the case of former East Bengal, Baluchistan has no cultural affiliation with Pakistani Punjab; indeed Baluchis, resent the Punjabis’ domination and Islam is not and never has been a binding factor. Baluchistan, incidentally, constitutes 42 per cent of Pakistan’s landmass and if Baluchistan succeeds in winning independence, as did East Bengal, then it won’t be long before Sindhis, too, claim independence status.

And that would reduce Pakistan to a joke. Musharraf is acutely aware of it. But will the Baluchs succeed? If Stephen Cohen is to be believed “Baluchistan is an unlikely candidate for a successful separatist movement, even if there are grievances, real and imagined, against a Punjab-dominated state of Pakistan” because “it lacks a middle class, a modern leadership and the Baluchs are a tiny fraction (about 5 per cent) of Pakistan’s population, and even in their own province are faced with a growing Pashtun population”. Also, according to Cohen, “neither Iran nor Afghanistan shows any sign of encouraging Baluch separatism because such a movement might encompass their own Baluch population”.

Even worse, Baluchs have little domestic resources. In the circumstances it would make no sense for India to encourage Baluchi separation unless the idea is just to keep the Pakistan Army engaged. That by itself is not a bad idea. Indeed it should be prescribed tactic to tell Islamabad that interfering in the internal affairs of one’s neighbour is a game at which two can play. If Pakistan claims that Jammu and Kashmir has a right to autonomy if not independence, why should not Delhi insist that the same right cam also be claimed by Baluchistan and with greater justification? Meanwhile, what is clearly evident is that Jinnah’s Two Nation Theory stands entirely exposed. Think this over, General Musharraf.

http://sify.com/news/fullstory.php?id=14144415

 

[Sid]

Yes and I'm sure you feel proud by copy, pasting from a heavily Indian biased website?

Talking about Balochistan getting independance and Sindh following and what not and how they are distinct from the rest of Pakistan is just UTTER NONSENSE. How about we take on India on that matter? India has so many distinct cultures and ethnicities that if there were a plebscite tomorrow in Kashmir (which would definitely break away); there is no stopping Assam and other states that are totally against dominance by the central Indian government to clamor for independance and leave India all broken up.

We must begin to understand that Pakistan and India are both Federal states meaning a set of different ethnicities, cultures, languages all held together under a federation controlled by the centre. Ofcourse some ethnicities would get more power and abuse it like Punjabis in Pakistan and Brahmins in India. But this has to be negotiated for and dealth with in a civilized manner; not like what the medieval sardars of Balochistan are doing by running around with their private armies, terrorizing average citizens of the state and creating plunder.

The sardars don't give a damn about provincial autonomy for Balochistan or unfairness to the Baloch people (which cannot be denyed though) by the centre because all they worry about is their control over the power structure in that province. Once multinationals start moving in, employing Balochis and non-Balochis enabling them to stand up on their own feet, the sardars would start to lose their hold on the lives of the poorer masses who have been under their rule for as long as the memory can serve.

The sardars must understand that this is the 21st century and the attitude of a stone-age mind will not prevail. The same goes for the mad mullahs running around burning cities to the ground hiding behind the facade of cartoon protests.

 

[SMC]

PFF news, please do not copy news from Sources that are totally pro-indian and don't know sh*t about whats going on. E.g. Sify, rediff, Aajtak, Headlines today, etc..

 

[Nasir]

Pakistan sees future in troubled province

<div class='bbimg'></div>
ARMORED VEHICLE: A guerrilla loads a rocket launcher on a camel in Balochistan. Rebels have battled the government since December.

Violence rises in Balochistan, which is home to untapped energy reserves.

By David Montero | Correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor

ISLAMABAD, PAKISTAN – Given all that glitters in Balochistan, it&#39;s no wonder Pakistan places the province at the center of its economic and strategic ambitions: It boasts rich deposits of gas, coal, and copper; a coastline granting access to Persian Gulf trade; and a transit zone for two proposed multibillion-dollar, natural-gas pipelines, one from Iran and one from Turkmenistan.
In geopolitical terms, Balochistan is a prize - one that Islamabad plans to bolster with &#036;2 billion-plus in investment.

But to the province&#39;s powerful tribal leaders, the prospect of such investment is troubling - bringing increased military presence and foreign development without assurances that the rewards will benefit the Baloch people. And tribal militants are making their feelings known in harsh terms.

In recent weeks, militants have fired hundreds of rockets at military installations, derailed trains, and murdered three Chinese engineers at work at a cement factory in the town of Hub. They&#39;ve also cut off gas supplies for days by attacking existing pipelines.

Both Pakistan&#39;s current and future economic growth hinges on developing Balochistan, particularly its energy resources. But, analysts say, that very development could destabilize the country by intensifying pressure on the province - and encourage meddling from other countries with interests in the region.

"Balochistan is potentially very rich. It&#39;s where most of the development will be, and the establishment knows it. Suddenly it realizes it needs better control over the province," says Ayesha Siddiqa, a defense analyst in Islamabad.

Senator Sana ullah Baloch, a leading Baloch politician, does not openly condone violence, but says it&#39;s a last resort. Like most Balochs, he&#39;s not interested in secession. But he feels his local government is a pawn of Islamabad, and wants increased autonomy. His province provides more than 40 percent of Pakistan&#39;s energy, but reaps only 12.4 percent in royalties and has historically seen little development aid.

Balochs have come to blows with Islamabad at least four times since 1947, when Pakistan was created. But most analysts agree the province is being squeezed harder now under President Pervez Musharraf.

That pressure has its source in the country&#39;s immediate energy needs. The natural-gas reserves currently being exploited in the region are expected to dry up by 2012. With demand growing, Pakistan needs more gas - and most untapped reserves lie in the troubled province. Some 19 trillion cubic feet, the largest known reserves in the country, are still buried in its ground.

That reality sends shivers down the spines of Baloch nationalists. "The entire economic future is completely reliant on Balochistan," points out Senator Baloch. "But it&#39;s not for the people of Balochistan. It&#39;s all controlled by the federal government and will benefit the federal government."

According to a government energy security document, demand over the next five years is expected to grow at a rate of 7.4 percent annually. Its prescription is to increase domestic exploration as well as diversify supplies by importing gas and liquified natural gas.

The document notes that Pakistan&#39;s energy needs will more than double in the next decade. Meeting those requirements, it says, will mean investing &#036;6 billion a year for the next 25 years, for a total of &#036;150 billion by 2030.

"We are approaching an era where energy will become a critical commodity," points out Javed Jabbar, a former minister of petroleum. "We have to develop our energy potential, and Balochistan is an important part of that."

Mr. Jabbar says such development is critical. "Our population is projected to more than double in the next 30 years. We&#39;re scheduled to become the fourth-largest country, behind India, China, and the US," he says.

With tensions flaring, many wonder if Islamabad&#39;s bid for a brighter future is threatening the integrity of the country. The "Balkanization" of Pakistan is common fodder in conversations and editorial pages. Many are comparing the situation with that in 1971, when East Pakistan broke away to become Bangladesh.

"It&#39;s just like Bosnia - initially it was a domestic issue, but it is becoming an international issue," says Moonis Ahmer, a professor at the University of Karachi.

Others argue that Musharraf risks compromising the war on terror by spreading the Army too thin to put down what appears to be a rising insurgency. "The more the Army is deployed, the more it will be sucked into a quagmire," says Professor Ahmer. "The military is being stretched far and wide."

Many analysts dismiss these assessments as premature, but caution that Islamabad needs to reverse years of neglect and exploitation.

"At the moment there is no framework for talking," says retired Lt. Gen. Talat Masood. "They should seek a political solution. You have to take several measures, political and social, over several years."

Pakistan also has to keep an eye on its neighbors&#39; view of the conflict. Balochistan shares thousands of miles of border with Afghanistan and Iran, which have Baloch populations.

Iran helped Islamabad defeat Baloch nationalists in 1973. But India has indicated tacit support for the province, pointing to human-rights concerns. China, meanwhile, has sought assurances from Musharraf that its investments and workers will be protected.

For Washington, the central issue is the proposed &#036; 7 billion pipeline from Iran, which is still under negotiation, but to which Musharraf has recently pledged his support. Some 475 miles of the 1,700-mile long pipeline would traverse Balochistan on its way to India. The US says the pipeline would provide a bridge between Tehran, whose nuclear ambitions worry the US, and nuclear rivals Pakistan and India. President Bush is likely to raise these concerns when he visits here this week.

Spokesmen for the government and the Army insist there is no military buildup in Balochistan, and that security will be ensured. "There is no military operation," says Aftab Ahmed Sherpao, Pakistan&#39;s interior minister. "I think the government will succeed in curbing this, if we can call it, insurgency."

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0228/p06s02-wosc.html