Indian Intervention in Balochistan

Is the US now planning to carry out drone attacks on Balochistan, much like it has done in Waziristan and other agencies of the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA)? Will the Taliban Shura - whose chief is said to be Mullah Mohammad Omar, who, according to the US and Indian propaganda, has taken refuge in Quetta - be the target for these possible attacks? Have India's activities and shenanigans in Balochistan increased from earlier on? Are the Indian agents being employed in Balochistan becoming the US' ears in regards to the Taliban Shura?

These are the questions that face Pakistan, and that have overwhelmed it. Prominent US newspaper The Washington Post wrote on September 30, 2009: 'The Taliban Shura in Quetta and the surrounding areas are planning attacks on American and NATO forces in Afghanistan'. Pakistan has strongly denied this, but the US ambassador stationed in Islamabad, Anne Patterson, said in an interview: 'We are worried over the presence of the Taliban Shura in Quetta. We have in the past had our focus centered on Al-Qaeda, but for Washington, the Taliban Shura now heads the list'. So, is a new fight now coming to the fore in Balochistan?

Pakistanis are trying to steer clear of this fight, and it will only be best if the US avoids drone attacks in Balochistan. But the main question is: How can we be safe from Indian intervention and violent activities in Balochistan? If Pakistan is crying out on all forums in the world that India is interfering in Balochistan and backing rebellious elements there, it is certainly not being said in jest. There exists evidence, and this evidence is being presented by India and its eminent journalists, thinkers, former diplomats and military analysts. For instance, the article that former Indian diplomat M K Bhadrakumar wrote on September 6, 2006, immediately after Nawab Akbar Bugti's assassination, is both venomous in regards to Balochistan's domestic situation and a reflection of India's intervention and aspirations in Balochistan. Bhadrakumar wrote: 'Just like India wants to make (Occupied) Kashmir a part of itself at all costs, no matter how heavy the damages to life and property, Pakistan, similarly, wants to maintain its 'occupation' in Balochistan - no matter how much blood there has to be spilt'.

Prevailing Political Circumstances
This commentary is certainly provoking, though this former Indian diplomat knows very well that the political circumstances in Occupied Kashmir (Indian-administered Kashmir) and Balochistan are entirely different. Yet the said Indian Hindu deliberately steered clear of this reality and indulged in a wrong debate.

The following is not an accusation made against India for the sake of making one: that nearly 600 Baloch youth are being trained under Indian supervision in Afghanistan to carry out disrupting activities in Pakistan. Moles say that two wings of the Indian intelligence agency, Research and Analysis Wing (RAW), namely CIT-X and CIT-J are running the camps for the above-mentioned Baloch youth. Famous Indian military expert, Praveen Swami, says: 'When in the past Pakistan had shenanigans carried out in support of the Khalistanis in India, RAW had CIT-X and CIT-J carry out explosions in Karachi and Lahore, in reply. These wings of RAW were shut down in the tenure of I K Gujral, but both may now be employed again to teach Pakistan a lesson'.

B Raman has added to these comments by Swami - and this is actually an intimation of the fact that India may have certain 'motives' for intervention in Balochistan, and that these are impliedly being admitted to. B Raman is a former RAW agent and now a prominent defense analyst. He says: 'There has been a significant decrease in the number of Hindus in Balochistan. This is an outright cruelty and an act of seclusion against them by the Establishment of Pakistan. During the construction of the port at Gwadar, the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) had forcefully removed the Balochi Hindus from there. India is quite distressed about such measures by Pakistan against the Balochi Hindus'.

If we read this provoking statement by a former agent of the Indian secret agency together with the statement of former Indian Navy Chief, Admiral Sureesh Mehta, it clearly opens up the layers to India's intervention in India. He was serving as chief of the Indian Navy when Mehta on January 24, 2008, said: 'The Gwadar Port has a strong adverse impact on India's strategic matters'.

A crushing and effective reply should have been given to this, but former President Pervez Musharraf and his supporters stayed mum. Such criminal silence can indeed be expected from a head of a state and a­ (former) head of the Pakistan Army who, for the sake of his own interests, becomes India's panhandler.

Every body knows that the Indians are behind whatever is being said against Pakistan in the name of a 'Baloch voice' and about the 'independence of Balochistan', over the past more than half a decade. But it is upsetting to see that Pervez Musharraf and Shaukat Aziz, as president and prime minister respectively, could not only not put a stopper to this voice from India, but could not raise their own voices against India either.

Independence of Balochistan
The centers under Indian supervision in Afghanistan called 'Missions in Pakistan', which prepare and distribute literature on Balochistan, are another tragic subject. It is the effect of this very literature and Indian intervention that made Nawabzada Brahmdagh say during a discussion with BBC on August 26, 2009: 'If India helps us in the independence of Balochistan, we shall accept'. It should be noted that there are 31 cases against Brahmdagh Bugti - ranging from murder to treason. Pakistan is fully assured that this mister is acting against Pakistan with all sorts of help provided by India.

It seems as if India is deliberately - and for the attainment of some greater goal -provoking its thinkers to spend all their energies in the form of the written word, so that the people of Balochistan may become wary of Pakistan and be inflamed against it. The case of Dr Ajay Sahni can be presented as an example. Ajay Sahni resides in Delhi and is an Executive Director of the Institute for Conflict (Management) and editor of the Asia Intelligence Review. He has in his comprehensive article, 'Is Pakistan Overhyping India's Role in Baluchistan' - which was published in The Times of India - resorted to a weird sort of instigation against Pakistan as regards Balochistan. He says: 'More than a million people were brought in from other provinces and settled in Balochistan so that the Baloch may be beaten on the basis of population. India, being a democratic and civilized country, can absolutely not remain isolated from whatever cruelties are happening to the Baloch in Balochistan'. This is the opinion of an Indian thinker, which in fact could be termed the Indian government's aspirations in relation to Balochistan.

Part of Joint Statement
When there was a meeting between Prime Minister Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani and his Indian counterpart Manmohan Singh in Sharm el-Sheikh (Egypt) on July 16, 2009, Gilani, considering it an appropriate opportunity, mentioned the Indian intervention in Balochistan, which was then also made a part of their joint statement. This was like a great diplomatic victory for Pakistan, to which there was great reaction in India. An as extremist and fundamentalist a Hindu party as the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) protested against the prime minister in the Rajya Sabha and the Lok Sabha. The prime minister even rescinded from his statement under pressure. A statement by Manmohan Singh in this regard was thus published on July 30, 2009: 'When I spoke to Prime Minister Gilani about terrorism from Pakistan, he told me that most Pakistanis believe that India is aggravating matters in Balochistan. I told him that we have no interest in destabilizing Pakistan. If Pakistan has evidence in this regard, we would like to see it'.

India's rescindments are known to the whole world, what difference does another one make. But the commentary that Sandeep Pandey - peace activist and prominent thinker - made on this statement in India is noteworthy too. Pandey said: 'Prime Minister Singh has in his (said) statement nearly admitted to what every Pakistani is mentioning (Indian intervention in Balochistan)'.