Dr. Ali Al-Ghamdi

 

When my article “Balochistan and the unity of Pakistan” was published in this newspaper on April 2, the reactions were mixed. There were some who commended the article and praised me for writing it, while others criticized it and accused me of ignorance, bias and the lack of objectivity.



I am thankful to those who praised the article, and I know that their number is greater than those who criticized it. I also thank those who criticized the article and raised some allegations against me. However, with regard to those who accused me of ignorance and bias, I would like to state that their criticism was unfounded.



I would like to emphasize the fact that the Indian Subcontinent was divided into two independent and sovereign states when the British left India after ending their colonial rule. I don’t want to engage in any Byzantine argument with my critics, but I do want to remind them that Pakistan came into being as a homeland for the Muslims of the Indian Subcontinent after a long and bitter struggle and great sacrifices. The Subcontinent was partitioned on the basis of a two-nation theory under which the regions where Muslims were a majority became part of Pakistan while Hindu majority regions remained a part of India. On the basis of this, two independent and sovereign nations became a reality and they both became members of the United Nations.



I also mentioned in the article that the secession of East Pakistan was not a easy process and that there were several reasons for the secession and the creation of the new state of Bangladesh. I cited these factors and there is no need to repeat them.



However, this does not mean that the state of Pakistan should allow any province or group of people to repeat what happened in East Pakistan. Those who speak about the independence or semi-independence of Balochistan should realize that the situation in some emirates in this province was similar to the situation in more than 500 princely states that were spread all over the Subcontinent during the British rule. With the exit of Britain and the independence of India and Pakistan, all of these princely states vanished.



Hyderabad was one of the largest of the princely states. When the Nizam of Hyderabad wanted to maintain his state's status quo even after the end of British rule, the Indian Army invaded Hyderabad and annexed it to the Indian Union. It is a known fact that Pakistan’s nuclear experiment angered not only its enemies but also some of its friends. Therefore, they worked to create disturbances to exploit some secessionist elements to undermine the security and stability of the country in one way or the other. They also tried to damage the reputation of Pakistani organizations.



Hence, it is evident that there is a wide difference between those who demand  political and economic reform and those who try to undermine the security and stability of the country to gain their secessionist goals. For example, in February 2012, a member of the US Congress presented a draft resolution demanding that Pakistan give the people of Balochistan their right to self-determination. A number of Congressmen backed this resolution, which noted that “Balochistan is currently divided between Pakistan, Iran and Afghanistan with no sovereign rights of its own.” The resolution sought to give the people of the province an opportunity to create an independent state for themselves.



There is no doubt that this resolution, proposed by self-styled advocates of altering the road map for the Middle East region, including Pakistan, was a dangerous and flagrant interference in the affairs of the countries in the region. It is totally unacceptable under any circumstances. Furthermore, a Congressional committee convened hearings on what it called extrajudicial killings and human rights violations in Balochistan. Although the US government quickly distanced itself from such schemes, some NGOs, funded by the US government, continued encouraging secessionists in Balochistan.



There are several splinter groups in Balochistan, but the so-called Balochistan Liberation Army (BLA) is the most violent and separatist outfit. The BLA is working to destabilize the country, and is threatening Pakistan’s national unity by its involvement in subversive acts from within and by establishing contacts with some external forces. It has established rapport with some US Congressmen in order to get moral and material support to continue its subversive and separatist activities. US Congressmen who are members of the Tea Party Caucus are raising their voice in the name of protecting human rights in Balochistan.



However, there has been a political settlement to end unrest in the province and subsequently a sharp decline in subversive acts and violence. Democratic elections to the provincial assembly were held in May, 2013 and the majority of the people in the region are eager to maintain the unity and integrity of Pakistan above all else and are striving to consolidate security, stability and democracy in the province.



As for the Tea Party members of the US Congress and others like them, on the one hand, they are calling for human rights, while on the other, they are supporting the gross human rights violations committed by the United States in Iraq, Afghanistan and the Guantanamo Bay detention center. Even though President Barack Obama in his 2008 election campaign promised to close Guantanamo, it still remains open.



We have the right to ask those who speak about the violations of human rights in Balochistan to explain what is happening in Palestine as far as human rights violations are concerned. The oppressive Israeli government is continuing to kill Palestinians and drive them out of their homes, besides confiscating their property under false pretenses. What about the Israeli occupying forces who are the greatest violators of human rights? What about the racial discrimination practiced by Israel against Palestinians with the blessing of the United States?



Why don’t those in the United States who speak about human rights make an effort to address the gross violations of human rights being committed by their government as well as by the government of Israel against Palestinians? Hasn't the US used its veto power to defeat all resolutions in the UN Security Council in favor of the Palestinian people who are victims of gross human rights violations?



What about the US position with regard to human rights violations in Kashmir, Myanmar, the Philippines and the Central African Republic? Aren't the members of the Tea Party Caucus in the US Congress guilty of employing a double standard?

 

— Dr. Ali Al-Ghamdi is a former Saudi diplomat who specializes in Southeast Asian affairs. He can be reached at algham@hotmail.com