Volume 7, No. 3, March 2025
Editor: Rashed Rahman
The Social media has been both a blessing and bane for the Baloch. The social media has been used, misused and abused to everyone’s heart’s content. What people do not realise is that even the wisest tweet has a two-minute lifespan but spiteful, hate-mongering, slanderous, vile and vicious tweets live long and their impact is devastating for all. The Baloch have at times used it for washing their dirty linen in public with lethal and devastating effect and consequences; fools do not see anything beyond their computer screen and are self-satisfied cyber-warriors who are out to destroy one and all.
Organised campaigns to highlight pressing issues have been quite effective; it is something else that this government and at times some sections of society prefer to ignore not only the words but also the very real traumas that people suffer, so it is perhaps folly to expect that our tweets and posts will help change the world anytime soon. This does not mean that we should abandon the social media because this is the only avenue we have as the mainstream media, mostly by its own choice and at times due to arm-twisting by the government, refuses to give any coverage to the Baloch issue or say to the Pashtun Tahafuz Movement (PTM), as both are wilfully ignored. Social media is a weapon without doubt but we have to hone our skills in its use to make it more effective in a battle of unequals.
Violence in response to State violence
The question of violence needs to be brought up as well because it is one the most important issues confronting any struggle for rights. The biggest obstacle is that somehow societies legitimise ‘State violence’ on one pretext or the other and unequivocally condemn the reactive violence from the victims of state violence. It is very conveniently forgotten that it is only to resist and counter state violence that people fighting for their rights resort to violence. The liberals are very prompt in condemning the retaliatory violence by the people but never wake up to violence by the state perpetrated in the guise of state interest and curbing terror, though all that the people are doing is defending themselves against the continued violence of the state by resisting those who are responsible for attacks on them. The liberals, including Baloch liberals, also use the argument that the violence against the people is because the Baloch have responded with violence; they probably think that by submissiveness they may be spared the violence that they suffer. This line of argument is being used since a long time and always deserves an answer. In the year 2012 I wrote a piece, “Castigating the victims”, as one journalist, a Baloch at that, Farrukh Pitafi in his piece had, like all liberals, placed the onus of suffering violence on the Baloch resistance. Daily Times under the Editorship of Rashed Rahman had printed my piece, but I think not a single other media outlet would touch it even with a mile-long pole.
So here it is:
A school of thought among liberals considers it progressive and fashionable to put the onus of state brutality on the victims, castigating them for resisting excesses and consequently affording the perpetrators a chance to inflict greater hardships and punishment on the people. They advocate abject submission to the perpetrators to minimize sufferings without realizing that submission demeans human dignity and ensures absolute slavery. They see life only in terms of jobs, even if menial in nature, and some sort of economic benefits even if these are leftovers of what is rightfully yours. Their advocacy is for grooming people to become well-fed slaves instead of accepting temporary hardships for a life of freedom and dignity. For them submission is a supreme virtue and resistance an abomination. They blame the victims to exonerate the perpetrators.
Mr Farrukh Pitafi in his piece, “Balochistan: now or never” in a local English daily, August 5, 2012, castigates the Baloch Sarmachars (resistance fighters) for “their betrayal to their people” and accuses them of having, “repeatedly asked their Baloch brethren to die for an independence that would take them from one slavery to another.” Supporting his contention, he adds, “If you have any doubts, take a look at the plight of the Baloch in the neighbouring countries.” His logic is flawed; the plight of the Baloch in neighbouring countries is the way it is because they too are colonised. His presumption, “The resource-rich region is far behind in human development making it a conspicuous prey for all ambitious forces in the region. That means that the province’s opportunistic elite, right now working closely with Islamabad, might get richer but the lot of the poor Baloch will not ameliorate even if the province wins independence,” is equally flawed because the Sarmachars are not only struggling against Islamabad but are up in arms against the ‘province’s opportunistic elite’ as well. One can only deduce that his contention is that if the Sarmachars had meekly submitted, the Baloch would have thrived. This flawed contention is dangerous, for while castigating the Sarmachars’ fight for lost rights, it justifies and endorses the Pakistani state’s persistent violence since the forcible annexation of Balochistan in 1948. He forgets that the Baloch have been dispossessed of their rightful legacy in economic, social and political life. The Baloch have suffered the most because they are fighting for their right to a life with dignity and honour. An abject submission to the state’s will would have made their lives even more miserable.
In early 1940, when Germans tanks were rolling over western Europe, Gandhi, because of his beliefs, wrote to the British Viceroy of India advising surrendering to the Germans, saying, “This manslaughter must be stopped. You are losing; if you persist, it will only result in greater bloodshed. Hitler is not a bad man…” Then, on July 4, 1940, in an open letter, he advised the British people, “Let them take possession of your beautiful island with your many beautiful buildings. You will give all these, but neither your souls, nor your minds.” Imagine the consequences if Britain had followed this advice. The argument that Hitler is not a bad man or the Pakistani state is not a bad master is as preposterous as it is dangerous. Ironically, such logic presupposes intrinsic goodness and good faith of the oppressor though he seeks solutions through force alone. Moreover, souls and minds cannot remain free if the body and motherland are in slavery and bondage. During the German occupation of Poland, France, etc, the partisans’ brave resistance prompted collective punishments from the Gestapo and included rounding up and shooting young men. But the people continued resisting in spite of the brutalities. No one accused the partisans of betrayal for they knew that without resisting they would suffer more as their freedom would be forever jeopardised. The partisans helped the Allies in defeating Germany. Surrendering the right to resist will always have devastating consequences for the oppressed.
In the Vietnam War, the US, hoping to force the Vietnamese into submission, indiscriminately bombed Hanoi and Haiphong. Whenever their planes were downed, they intensified the bombings, causing more casualties and damage. But that did not deter the Vietnamese from continuing to down the US planes because that was the only way of countering the illegal bombing. This downing of planes was never termed as betrayal by the people because they knew that without a robust defence, the US would certainly kill and destroy more.
Pitafi suggests a South African-type peace building as a solution to the Balochistan problem but forgets that South African whites grudgingly agreed to peace after realising that without accepting black rule they would lose everything. Needless to say, it was the consistent and brave struggle of Nelson Mandela and the African National Congress (ANC), who too were at times accused of bringing down repression on the black South Africans with their resistance, which secured the rights for blacks in their homeland. Peace in South Africa became possible only when blacks were accepted as equals. Here the state cares only about what Pitafi calls, “44 percent of the country’s landmass” and not the people; for them people are expendable. Moreover, who would this peace be negotiated by? Certainly not by the likes of Raisani and his corrupt cronies because they have already bartered away Baloch rights for power and pelf tainted with Baloch blood and do not represent the Baloch. The Pakistani state refuses to talk to the only ones who really matter.
Violence should never be the preferred option but one is forced to ask if the Vietnamese and Algerian leaders were wrong to resist US and French colonialism, or was Allende wrong when he died fighting and came to symbolise the Chilean people’s resistance to the Pinochet dictatorship? I also wonder what would have Spartacus and his companions thought if they were told that by resisting the Romans they were betraying the slaves.
The Sarmachars have not betrayed the Baloch but have upheld their rights and dignity in spite of suffering immeasurably at the hands of the state. They have thwarted the state’s plan to deprive the Baloch of all their rights, resources and historical legacy. The Sarmachars with their sacrifices have assumed the role of hope, voice and protectors of the Baloch people. The real betrayal of Balochistan is from those who have either kept quiet or abetted those denying the Baloch their rights. Castigating those who resist injustices only exonerates the state of its crimes.
Sadly, sometimes the violence is directed against the civilians who are in service of the state or are involved in projects that the Baloch deem as against the Baloch interests. This is often justified as a deterrence to the designs of the state’s attempt to enhance its physical presence in Balochistan. The issue, though quite complex, has to be dealt with with clear mindedness and not be just guided by emotions. As a matter of principle, I oppose violence against civilians and have often written against it. I will quote from two of my articles.
In “A Thin Red Line” I wrote:
“Revolution thrives on people because it is for the people and it has to remain distinct and different from terror if it is to in anyway succeed. Terror cannot be palmed off as revolution just because those perpetrating terror think it was essential. Revolution is not a tactic, it is a strategy and has to be given its due respect by the actions that are taken in its name; you cannot make monumental blunders and try to get away with the excuse that it is revolution. Revolution has its own strict code and values that cannot be flouted and if flouted, you cannot call it revolution. The bar of revolution cannot be lowered for exigency and convenience, it is you who have raise your standards and if you cannot then part ways. Revolution is not about gaining power and pelf it is about achieving goals for benefit and welfare of people and serving them.”
And:
“Those who are upholding the banner of struggle for Baloch rights will have to be more discerning and judicious in their approach to matters which unfortunately would make their actions, though taken in earnest, akin to terror rather than revolution and people friendly. No one has the right to make blanket judgments on who is a patriot and who is a traitor and make people suffer for what they think is right or wrong. No one has a right to act god with the monopoly to mete out punishments or rewards according to what he or they think is right or wrong.
I mentioned above there is a tendency of denial of reality in life whereby one refuses to see or acknowledge the reality in a false sense of complacency probably hoping that if I try not to see or acknowledge it, it will disappear. Real life is however different from our perception or our acknowledgement of it and the consequences will be dire if our actions have invited them regardless of what we think. It is essential that all those who have authority to be brave and accept when mistakes are made because the struggle for Baloch rights isn’t about massaging our egos it is about serving the people and achieving what they aspire and desire for themselves and their future generations.”
In the piece “Not In My Name” on July 15, 2012 in Daily Times I wrote:
“I know what I say will irk many of the young enthusiastic activists enough to brand me as a lily-livered, chicken-hearted liberal, but I am not going to give up my humanism and humanity just for the fear of being labelled as such. I will speak up for what I think is right. I would have condemned the Turbat killings regardless of who was behind them. We rightly and readily condemn those who look the other way when the Baloch are the victims, hence I think we too should not look the other way when people are killed in our name. Killing innocents in the name of the struggle is morally wrong because filth cannot be washed away by filth and the enemy strives to create a situation where people resisting them come down to their level.
If anybody thinks criticizing incorrect policies committed in the name of the struggle is tantamount to undermining the cause, he is absolutely wrong. Wrong because if we do not develop the spirit and the moral strength to speak up on policies that we think are wrong or flawed, we will, when emancipated, end up exactly like those we are struggling to be emancipated from, and that is not something all these sacrifices are being made for. Autocratic rulers and repressive armies remain unpunished because people look the other way, pretending that nothing is happening. Therefore, if we too pretend that nothing is happening when innocent people are killed, we too will be guilty of abetting the crime. Emancipation is sought for being different from the oppressor, but if we want to act like the oppressor than why seek emancipation at all? Why not join up and do more of the same? When people stop dissenting and opposing injustices, then the likes of Pol Pot, the Pakistani state and the Taliban are created.
Wanton violence is immoral and counter-productive, eventually leading to an irreversible rot in organizations and states. Amazingly, the head-hunting Dayak tribes of Borneo, famous for displaying shrunk enemy heads as coveted trophies and considered savages for that, shunned the wanton violence that we witness here today. The Dayaks considered it immoral to kill someone they did not know or did not have a score to settle with. They were shocked to learn that so-called civilized people used mass destruction weaponry to kill and maim indiscriminately. For them, killing people with whom they had no feud was something reprehensible and revolting. Wilful and wanton violence had no place in their society, neither should it have in ours. We need to learn from the Dayaks and refrain from wanton violence. The Dayaks were a lot more civil and refined in their violence than that practiced by the Pakistani state, its ‘strategic assets’, and the mobs here, for theirs is a violence as wanton as it is senseless and immoral. Let us not become one of them.
Moreover, we also have friends, supporters and sympathizers the world over and they expect us to be different in our approach from the state, for it is the difference and justice of our cause for which they support us. Indiscriminate violence will alienate friends. The Baloch struggle is for freedom; it is not an ethnocentric war and that is exactly what the agencies want to bring it down to, so that the Baloch lose support and credibility. Anyone attempting to bring it down to that level is no friend of the Baloch. Remember, Aslam Raisani is not a Punjabi and neither is anyone collaborating with the state to undermine the struggle. The Baloch struggle should not be allowed to be degraded into an ethnic war.
I have to admit I would not be willing to accompany someone who gloats about or condones atrocities on ethnic grounds even on a short trip, let alone the cherished journey of emancipation that the Baloch have embarked upon. Before someone thinks that I am getting cold feet, they should know that my commitment has been and will be unwavering until either I am physically eliminated by the state or I become incapacitated by disease or age. I will neither acquiesce to state intimidation to give up the cause that is closest to my heart and at the same time, I will not remain quiet at mistakes committed by us simply for the fear of opprobrium from friends who would readily see it as a weakening in my avowed position. I support the Baloch cause because my conscience tells me it is the right thing and for the same reason, I will speak the truth. Moreover, I will not be silent if atrocities are committed in my name. We need to face the truth otherwise we will end up living with our illusions.”
(To be continued)