Political polarization in Pakistan over issues like the handling of the Balochistan crisis, the construction of the Kalabagh Dam and the continuation of the Waziristan operation, has continued unfazed.
The government’s approach to resolving the Kalabagh Dam issue has not been to take the matter to the political class, to the representatives of the people. Instead President Pervez Musharraf has taken what he believes is the ‘direct route’. He is talking to the people. Laying before them the facts of the dam he is urging them to ignore opposition’s strike and protest calls.
Meanwhile, a newspaper has reported strange comments made by Information Minister Shaikh Rashid Ahmad. He says the government will adopt “bullet against bullet policy to deal with miscreants” that want to break up the country. In fact, he warned of the country being divided, the recurrence of a 1971-like situation if the opposition to the Kalabagh Dam continues. With the current climate of polarization persisting, such a move would be completely unwarranted.
It remains unclear why the government simply cannot begin work on the Basha Dam, announce the NFC Award, implement the 1991 Water Accord as immediate CBMs and also work toward improving the overall political climate in the country. Work on Kalabagh Dam can then be initiated. The Balochistan issue too is likely to get further complicated. There, too, the battle-lines are deepening, not disappearing. Unless immediate work on the political track isn’t initiated the situation in Balochistan will only get worse. There are reports of growing anger and violence. The manner in which the last two paramilitary Frontier Constabulary (FC) men were killed point blank in the Khuzdar bazaar shows the vulnerability of all sides. The Balochistan Liberation Front (BLF) has claimed responsibility while declaring that more of these attacks will take place if the FC does not stop killing innocent Balochs. Regardless of whoever constitutes and supports the BLF, it’s a factor that cannot be ignored. Increasingly the opposition senators from Balochistan, the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan and the media, are telling stories of human rights violations.
They are complaining against continued attacks on Dera Bugti and in Kohlu. Ignoring the diplomatic niceties, India too has said its bit to gain Baloch sympathy and to embarrass Pakistan. Already HRCP has warned that it will call international attention to the Balochistan situation. Very soon, we will see international human rights groups raising the issue. And if there is trouble, they will not ignore it. Balochistan does not call for a tit-for-tat action by the state. Admittedly the latest round of violence begun after the inspector general of the FC was attacked. Bomb blasts targeting grid stations, power plants and supply lines have occurred. But while some show of force maybe required the substance of the response should require a rapid rethink of how to tackle this latest round of a crisis that has been since long brewing. The state apparatus no longer holds the classic monopoly over violence. It remains vulnerable to the violence of the angered. The anger has historic roots. The validity of that anger is not the issue. That it is now widespread among the Baloch is. It makes the political folklore of the deprived Baloch repeatedly wronged by the center sound credible. The Balochs and the sardars have scores to settle, but that will be an evolutionary process rather than a quasi-revolutionary one patronized by a state that itself is party to another kind of conflict in Balochistan.
Opening too many battlefronts is never wise in any situation, least of all in politics and especially if you claim to be engaged in politics of change and reform. Who are your allies in the reform process? The people? Which ones? Is it the millions who only link themselves to the political class of the country with all that is ‘good, bad and ugly’ about that class? That is the class that has to be engaged, for whom reform has to be made attractive. The center has to be made credible. The messenger advocating the reform process has to be credible and conciliatory. Battling is no political strategy even if ‘truth’ and ‘national good’ is your ammunition and patriotism your battle gear. All this ammunition and battle gear in context is now suspected. There is also wisdom in the cynicism that pervades our social and political scene.
If, on the one hand, the public has to deal with corrupt politicians, it has not missed the lack of principled politics by those who have booted out the politicians. Political wheeling dealing, the breaking of promises, the changing of stated priorities etc., no matter what the justification is, the average person is distrusting of all those linked to power.
On Balochistan, the center must reactivate the parliamentary committee that was addressing the issue. The committee’s lead members should take its 139-page report and begin to publicly demonstrate that they are “fighting for the rights of the small provinces.” Steps beyond writing reports must be taken and the public must be kept informed of its work, especially the people of Balochistan.
There is need to take drastic practical steps to address the concerns of parties to the major conflicts that have surfaced within our country: The concern of the Sindhis and the people of NWFP over the Kalabagh Dam; the Baloch over the many issues, including the NFC award, gas royalty, the management of PPL, the new cantonments, the concurrent list, raised in the Parliamentary Committee’s report; the religious parties and the locals in Waziristan over the ongoing military operation.
Nothing short of this will work. Asking people to shun agitation may work in Punjab but not elsewhere. In fact, the sense of victimization continues and the affirmative action taken by the center on allocation of development funds, among other actions, has not translated into a positive image for the center. It is so because these positive steps have not been backed by positive politics. Politics of engagement require the more powerful of the two parties to opt for engagement.
Such is the politics of the visionary and of the wise. Combative politics is reactive politics, destined to alienate rather than end alienation. The politics of engagement needs to be accompanied by additional steps that would address the concerns of these citizens of Pakistan who have been disillusioned and embittered because of the past mistakes committed by the center — both civilian and military politicians.
The politics of engagement must also extend to the broader issue of putting a credible system in place, one that upholds the constitution and the rule of law. The opposition’s decision to table legislative bills proposing the setting up of an independent Election Commission and restoring the independence of the judiciary must be supported by all those in the parliament who believe that Pakistan desperately needs a credible system if it is to be pulled out of these cyclical crises. In fact, Pakistan’s repeated rendezvous with this mess only points to one fundamental truth: That without a credible state system and genuine democracy functioning with an independent judiciary and an independent election commission, Pakistan is unlikely to experience lasting political stability and internal harmony.
