Musharraf: Leading the pack of pawns, devoted to dismembering Pakistan

0
36

Daily Times carried a report with an interesting headline on December 7, 2004. The headline reads: “School curriculum ‘enlightened’; Two-Nation Theory explained: ‘Muslim deprivation, not religion, led to Partition'”

The new National Curriculum for Pakistan Studies for grades IX and X includes new chapters on the Musharraf regime’s “enlightened moderation,” and a secular explanation of the Two-Nation Theory and independence of Pakistan. The new curriculum explains that the Two-Nation Theory and Pakistan’s ideology was the result of “specific economic and social deprivation of Muslims in India” and not a desire of Muslims to have a homeland for living by Islam.

The Zionists sponsored “intellectual,”
as well as military pawns propagate the “same theory,” that Pakistan was created to be just a Muslim state and that Islam had nothing to do with the struggle to have a separate homeland for Muslims. Here we would like to would like to explain other pawns in the big game to dismember Pakistan.

The Indian Express (September 22, 2006) carried an article on the edit page by Saeed Naqvi that graphically described a meeting of top Sindhi, Baluchi and Pakhtoon leaders in London’s Action Hall recently, demanding azadi (freedom) from Pakistan. And they are not ordinary hirelings of RAW as the Pakistani administration would claim, but the most high-profile leaders like MQM’s Altaf Hussain, Ataullah Mengal of Baluchistan, Mahmood Khan Achakzai of Pakhtoonistan and Syed Imdad Mohammed Shah of Sindh.

Naqvi writes that the meeting was the ‘second burial of the two-nation theory’, the first being the creation of Bangladesh. In fact the burial of the two-nation theory is still underway. Musharraf regimes changing the school curriculum show that the work on the burial is still in progress. The difference in Musharraf, Hussain Haqqani and other nationalist leaders approach lies in modus operandi. The ultimate result of all these efforts is nothing but a dismembered and non-existent Pakistan.

Condoleezza Rice has called the recent Israeli aggression and resulted death and destruction in Lebanon as the “birth pangs of a new Middle east”. The term has gone unnoticed in the Muslim world, but it contains some of the most profound comments about US foreign policy in greater Middle East of which Pakistan remains an integral part. We would draw the attention towards an article and maps appearing in the US armed forces magazine, Armed Forces Journal (AFJ).

Armed Forces Journal is the leading joint service monthly magazine for officers and leaders in the United States military community. Founded in 1863, AFJ has been providing essential review and analysis on key defense issues for over 140 years. AFJ offers in-depth feature coverage of military technology, procurement, logistics, strategy, doctrine and tactics. AFJ also provides special coverage of special operations, U.S. Coast Guard and U.S. National Guard developments.

An Article appeared in the June 2006 issue of ‘Armed Forces Journal’ and gives the future plans to reshape the Middle East to create a new entity within the Muslim heartland. It makes some thought provoking reading and when mapped on the actual events unfolding on the ground, it makes one hell of a sense, especially when it comes to Baluchistan and Musharraf’s initiatives both on the ideological and physical fronts. As it can be seen, the article is not a brainwave of any riff-raff tabloid but the mouth piece of presently deployed US foreign policy in the Muslim heartland. The article gives its view and perhaps policy on dismemberment of Pakistan and division of its lands between Afghanistan and a “free Baluchistan”.

In the article, Blood borders — How a better Middle East would look, Ralph Peters unashamedly suggests dismemberment of Pakistan in following words.

“What Afghanistan would lose to Persia in the west, it would gain in theeast, as Pakistan’s Northwest Frontier tribes would be reunited withtheir Afghan brethren (the point of this exercise is not to draw maps aswe would like them but as local populations would prefer them).Pakistan, another unnatural state, would also lose its Baluch territoryto Free Baluchistan. The remaining "natural" Pakistan would lie entirelyeast of the Indus, except for a westward spur near Karachi”

For some strange reason the writer seems very concerned for Kurds, Arab Shias and Baluch and tries to be philosophical about the preposterous suggestion of further dividing Middle east and Muslim world.

“Of course, no adjustment of borders, however draconian, could make every minority in the Middle East happy. In some instances, ethnic and religious groups live intermingled and have intermarried. Elsewhere,reunions based on blood or belief might not prove quite as joyous astheir current proponents expect. The boundaries projected in the mapsaccompanying this article redress the wrongs suffered by the mostsignificant "cheated" population groups, such as the Kurds, Baluch andArab Shia”"Even those who abhor the topic of altering borders would be well-servedto engage in an exercise that attempts to conceive a fairer, if stillimperfect, amendment of national boundaries between the Bosporus and theIndus. Accepting that international statecraft has never developedeffective tools –” short of war –” for readjusting faulty borders, amental effort to grasp the Middle East’s "organic" frontiers nonethelesshelps us understand the extent of the difficulties we face and willcontinue to face. We are dealing with colossal, man-made deformitiesthat will not stop generating hatred and violence until they arecorrected."As for those who refuse to "think the unthinkable," declaring thatboundaries must not change and that’s that, it pays to remember thatboundaries have never stopped changing through the centuries. Bordershave never been static, and many frontiers, from Congo through Kosovo tothe Caucasus, are changing even now.Oh, and one other dirty little secret from 5,000 years of history:Ethnic cleansing works”

The “dirty little Secret” is that ethnic cleansing is required which would remove all “external” ethnic and religious forces from the domains of their target regions which are supposed to be “librated” or given freedom. Ethnic cleansing cannot be done democratically but only through brutal terrorism as we saw ethnic cleansing of Bosnians in Balkans and now of Palestinians in Middle East. This very suggestion of ethnic cleansing completes the profile of the body which will be given responsibility for driving non-Baluch Pakistanis out of Baluchistan. For all this turmoil and desired changes to take place, Pakistanis must lose sight of the purpose of Pakistan’s creation. They must forget about Islam as the main uniting force. This is the area on which General Musharraf and other Zionist sponsored ‘intellectuals’ are focusing through books, newspaper articles and curriculum changes.

Global Security, another US based think tank, gives a very interesting insight into history and development of insurgency in Baluchistan.

"Baluchistan Insurgency”Divided in the nineteenth century among Iran, Afghanistan, and British India, the Baloch found their aspirations and traditional nomadic life frustrated by the presence of national boundaries and the extension of central administration over their lands. Moreover, many of the most militant Baloch nationalists were also vaguely Marxist-Leninist and willing to risk Soviet protection for an autonomous Baluchistan. Some foreign governments feared that an independent or autonomous Baluchistan might allow the Soviet Union to develop and use the port at Gawadar, and no outside power was willing to assist the Baloch openly or to sponsor the cause of Baloch autonomy."By early 1974, an armed revolt was underway in Baluchistan, the southwestern region of Pakistan bordering on Afghanistan and Iran. In northwest Pakistan, populated mainly by ethnic Afghan-Pashtuns, insurrectionist sabotage was a common occurrence. The extent of the Daoud regime’s involvement in these insurrections has been a matter of some debate, but he clearly was allowing Baluch resistance fighters to set up bases in Afghanistan, and was providing sanctuary to Pashtun dissidents who were under warrant of arrest in Pakistan.By 2004 Baluchistan was up in arms against the federal government, with the Baluchistan Liberation Army, Baluchistan Liberation Front, and People’s Liberation Army conducting operations. Rocket attacks and bomb blasts have been a regular feature in the provincial capital, particularly its cantonment areas, Kohlu and Sui town, since 2000, and had claimed over 25 lives by mid-2004."The Gwadar Port project employed close to 500 Chinese nationals by 2004. On 03 May 2004, the BLA killed three Chinese engineers working on the Port. Gwadar airport was attacked by rockets at midnight on 21 May 2004″. The role of Afghanistan remains unchanged even now and with added US interests in the region of keeping the Chinese out, BLA becomes an added instrument of US designs of shaping the greater ME and also keeping the Chinese out of Baluchistan. "In an article “Violence and Rebellion in Iranian Baluchistan,” Chris Zambelis a contributor to US think tank (Jamestown.org) clearly links violence in Iranians Baluchistan as well as in Pakistan to nationalist groups like BLA for the cause of independent greater Baluchistan and links the Baluch aspirations to Kurdistan as proposed in the AFJ map. Iranians suspect US hands in fomenting troubles in Iranian Baluchistan as also confirmed lately by Seymour Hersh, the famous award winning journalist.

Chris writes:

“Iranian officials and other observers implicate an obscure Baloch militant organization known as Jundallah (Soldiers of God) for spearheading the uprising. Iranian Baloch often identify with the larger Baloch community that resides in Pakistan and Afghanistan in what is referred to as "Greater Baluchistan" because tribal and family lines traverse all three countries. One Baloch nationalist website directed toward Western audiences compares the historic plight of the Baloch to that of the Kurds and their longing for a Kurdish state." (http://www.baloch2000.org)

Hardliners in Tehran downplay ethnic and sectarian tensions in Iran. They instead blame foreign intelligence services with an interest in destabilizing the country through the support of restive minorities (Asia Times, June 8; al-Jazeera, October 17, 2005).

Baloch nationalist websites frequently post graphic photographs and video footage of alleged Iranian security operations and atrocities committed against Iranian Baloch civilians (http://www.balochwarna.org ).

It is unclear whether a group operating under the name Jundallah in Pakistani Balochistan is affiliated with its Iranian counterpart, although Tehran and Islamabad claim that Baloch militants on both sides of the border cooperate in the area of arms and narcotics trafficking and financing (The News International, January 8; Asia Times, June 8)

A Baloch website reportedly run by the BLA claims that Tehran and its neighbors maintain a longstanding policy of suppressing Baloch culture and identity. This includes schemes designed to deliberately impoverish the region in order to ensure the inferior status of ethnic Baloch in Iran and elsewhere in the geographic area (http://www.balochvoice.com )”

One could have dismissed the AFJ proposal for a free Baluchistan if the proposal was not supported by stunning moves by BLA on ground and General Musharraf’s efforts on both the ideological and physical fronts. In the absence of Islam as a main ideological force for the independence of Pakistan, ethnic nationalism makes perfect sense. If Muslims could demand separation on the basis of economic deprivation before 1947, then Baloch and Pashtun are perfectly justified in demanding separation for the same reasons. General Musharraf’s devoted work to undermine the ideology or Pakistan and throwing the raison d’être from the school curriculum works hand in hand with the forces that are being supported to work for separation from pakistan. Just look at the posting on their website Government of Baluchistan.

“Balochistan comprises of areas in Afghanistan, Iran and Pakistan. But, Iran and Pakistan forcibly occupied Balochistan and oppressed the Baloch people. The “Baloch War of Independence” has begun, and our freedom fighters are engaged in guerrilla warfare to liberate Balochistan. On April 18, 2006, we declared the Government of Balochistan in Exile, nominated His Highness Mir Suleman Dawood Khan as our King, chose the red, green, blue with sun as our flag, and reinstated Kalat as our capital”

Here a formal declaration of a government in exile with its head of State has been declared along with a flag. What is intereesting to note is that while the BLA claims that Baluch are spread in three countries, it plans to wage war against only 2 of them –” Iran and Pakistan. Obviously, Afghanistan remains the country from where the “foreign players” are instigating the violence in both Iran and Pakistan which fits the AFJ’s suggestion of a “free Afghanistan”.

Baluchistan’s impertinence for US is undeniable. So it dismembering Pakistan to neutralize the threat of a nuclear Muslim state. The U.S. was already using military bases of Pasni and Dalbandin to launch attacks inside Afghanistan to wage a war on those who wanted to establish an independent Islamic entity. In the future, U.S. would be able to use secular BLA assets to fight and neutralzie the religious forces who work to establish an independent Islamic entity. After the demise of Soviet Union, in the era of a war on Islam, an independent Baluchistan makes a lot sense to Washington now. BLA remains its prime assets for the job. Americans still do not consider BLA as a terrorist outfit despite UK’s declaring the outfit as a terrorist outfit. On the 17th of July 2006, the British Home Office also added the BLA to the list of terrorist organizations banned in the United Kingdom.

As for Pakistan, under the leadership of Zionists and neo-cons backed General Musharraf, the stakes are now all times high. With thousands of loyalist Bugtis and Marris back in dera Bugti and Marri regions, the sub-nationalist seperatists led by BLA are devastatingly crippled though not yet down and out. They have powerfull backers in Afghanistan and also in West providing them political protection, finances and military support to cause maximum damage within Pakistan and Iran. Ahmadan Bugti is the first cousin of Akbar Bugti and from the ruling Rahija tribe of the Bugtis. He has just retunred to his native Dera Bugti after 10 years of exile and persecution at the hands of BLA. He is as pure a Baluch as any Baluch can be. Just ask Ahmadan what Akbar Bugti and BLA plans for Pakistan.

Musharraf’s move to change the school curriculum and teach the future generations that Pakistan was not created because of Muslims’ desire to live by Islam in a separate homeland, further justifies claims of separatists and paves the way the disintegration of the country. If Muslims, presently living under perpetual military occupation in Pakistan, don’t have to live by Islam in all walks of life; if they have to live under secular systems, why should they not live in a land called Baluchistan, Pakhtoonistan or one big, united, all India? Musharraf is cutting the branch on which he is sitting. The rest of the separatists pawns are adding fuel to the fire that will lead to the demise of Pakistan as we know it.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Comment moderation is enabled. Your comment may take some time to appear.