Crisis in Balochistan – Pakistan

IT is no longer surprising that parliament fails to engage in meaningful debates on critical national challenges. It has become a platform for airing concerns and hastily ending discussions, as in the Balochistan crisis. This crisis, which led to the resignation of Sardar Akhtar Mengal, the head of his Balochistan National Party faction, and prompted the opposition to hold a multiparty meeting outside parliament, is a stark reminder of the urgent need for immediate and effective parliamentary discourse.

Civic institutions have increasingly become letterboxes, content to issue simple statements on major crises to fulfill their moral obligations. After the recent spate of violence in Balochistan, Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif chaired a meeting of the Supreme Committee in Quetta, ostensibly with the same intention of fulfilling a moral duty. The exact course of events at the meeting remains unclear, as media reports only mention that “major decisions” were taken, without providing any details about what those decisions were.

A few official media outlets added brief details in their coverage of the high-level meeting, mentioning plans to increase the capacity of the Counter-Terrorism Department (CTD), police, levies and related departments. The reports raised concerns about why a crucial task such as stamping out insurgency was being assigned to a police-led CTD, which operates under a limited mandate and lacks public confidence due to allegations of extrajudicial actions. There were also concerns about how the CTD will act and respond. However, it is now clear that the CTD will not operate in isolation and will work closely with other law enforcement agencies (LEAs).

The ruling party either underestimates the crisis in Balochistan or is afraid to take decisions of national importance on its own. During his first visit to Balochistan after taking oath as prime minister in April 2022, Prime Minister Shehbaz had made a statement about raising the issue of missing persons “with powerful circles”. One wonders what happened to it. Similarly, the office of the president is a symbol of federal unity. Yet, it has remained silent on the matter even though the PPP had initiated a unique reconciliation initiative in Balochistan during its 2008-13 rule, called the ‘Aghaz-i-Haqooq-i-Balochistan package’. Unfortunately, the bureaucracy, the establishment and the government had combined to ensure that the initiative failed. The PPP is ruling Balochistan again but remains silent as it watches the situation unfold.

Political parties can promote the inclusion process by entering into dialogue.

It is a common perception that civilian governments and mainstream political parties deliberately do not interfere in security-related matters to avoid the wrath of the establishment. They endorse whatever the establishment wants and only add a small caveat to save face in public. It is understood that most mainstream political parties derive their strength from those in power rather than the masses, but that does not mean that they should completely outsource all matters of national importance to the security establishment. That does not absolve them of their responsibilities and they cannot claim that they were not involved in decision-making or were forced to comply. History will judge them not only by their actions but also by their silence.

Political parties can facilitate the process of inclusion by initiating dialogue, even if certain powerful forces try to undermine the process and remain unyielding in their approaches and practices, even if those practices do not yield results. The limitations of the establishment cannot serve as an excuse for political parties. If a political party fails to initiate an inclusion process and focuses solely on protecting its narrow interests, modern political science calls it a ‘mafia’. Such groups do not qualify as legitimate political actors.

The vacuum left by political parties is eventually filled by highly motivated groups that draw their strength from ideology, identity, socio-political grievances and economic backwardness. This is exactly what is happening in strategically important parts of the country, where rights-based movements have gained strength and now claim to represent the will of the people. The establishment and the traditional parties are equally concerned about these movements, as they challenge the status quo. They both try to portray such movements as a threat to national security and are unwilling to engage with them.

There is no greater weakness than losing the ability to reason with your own people. In the absence of an inclusive process, people have learned to use social media as an effective tool to communicate with the authorities. However, state institutions seem more concerned about the power of social media than about listening to the voice of the people.

The new ability to mobilize people without the support of political parties is a major concern for rulers, but it also represents a shift in power dynamics.

Balochistan needs a dialogue with the power elites — whoever is part of that elite — and with the intelligentsia, civil society, media and people of Punjab. However, our state intuitions, including the ruling political parties and the parliament, are reluctant to take this initiative. If the opposition parties are planning to organise a multi-party conference on Balochistan, the move should be welcomed and appreciated by the ruling parties. One can predict the outcome of the conference — the opposition parties will not overstep any boundaries and will avoid confrontation with the establishment. However, their involvement will significantly enrich the discourse on Balochistan. Think tanks and civil society can then enter into dialogue and the independent media can also contribute to the discussion.

Where state institutions, political parties and parliament fail to initiate dialogue, rights movements can intervene to build consensus around their demands by organising national jirgas and conventions. While power elites may not embrace such gatherings, they will gradually become embedded in the collective memory of the community, continually challenging established norms of ‘national interest’.

The writer is a security analyst.

Published in Dawn, September 8, 2024