Remarks by Malek Towghi at WSI’s lecture entitled, “Human Rights in Focus”, Longworth House Office Building, Washington, D.C. March 7, 2005. Some portions have been edited for purposes of length or clarity. The opinions or views expressed are those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect those of WSI.
My name is Malek Towghi. I am speaking both as a humble student of history with a Ph.D. in the History of International Relations, and as my professional background in one way or the other has had to do with Pakistan as a so-called Research Officer. Of course, that is, at the disposal of the Pakistani establishment I was a gazetted officer. And then in 1962, they realized that I had changed.
The reason that I was selected as a gazetted officer is because I had been active in Jama’at-e-Islami Party and at that time they were sure that this anti-revolutionist, anti-nationalist, radical fanatic, this Malek Towghi would never be a danger. But I came to know about Baloch history, about Kuli Camp, and the kinds of torture that our brother Hasan Mujtaba was talking about, so I was transformed into a Baloch nationalist. And then I had only two choices – either to collaborate with them, for example, when you meet Khair Bux Murrie - which was a crime – “it’s okay but let me know what he says.” Or then they not very politely let me know what they had done to people like me in the Kuli Camp, with torture. Kuli Camp is one of the notorious things, where Baloch leaders – including the top Baloch leaders – were tortured much more cruelly than what we have read about in the Abu Gharib prison tortures.
So I was faced with these two choices: to collaborate, or war, and confess that reality. Or I had a third choice. My father had settled, I am Baloch, and as a Baloch, these borders are artificial and so I went to Iran. And by the time the Pakistani and Iranian authorities found out, I had the chance to come to America as a political asylee. I am indebted to many people, including Selig Harrison, who helped me not be deported back to the Shah’s Iran or Zia ul-Haq’s Pakistan.
This was short notice for me and there are some generalities. I would like to thank the World Sindhi Institute. I tried to arrange my notes under the heading, “Balochistan and Western Powers: Past, Present and Future”. But there is one preliminary, because it is eventually related to our dream to have a united, free Balochistan eventually, and there are some questions sometimes that we must answer, such as “How is it possible?”
Let me remind you that South Asia and the Iranian plateau, most of the time, have never been ruled by one central authority. The facts of history are that, in really short periods, some large areas of, say, South Asia, were under a central government, but for 95% of history, South Asia has been an independent and semi-independent, nationalist center of origins of power.
As you know, during the time of the Ashoka this was the extent of the Indian Morya Empire, but we students of history know that that remained for a very short period The second largest empire is the Gupta period, which is this area in India, and then the earlier Muslim empire was limited to here in the Southern Valley, and then, for a really short period you had Plassi. This is the extent of these so-called global empires. But again, these borders only remained there for a very short time
Most of the time, when the British started their expansion in India, they did not capture India as one single government. It took about one century, moving from south and east to west, two centuries if we talk about the first so-called factories and trading posts the British established in 1615 or so, and in Bombay in about 1680. The first direct expansion of British rule began with the Battle of Plassey in what is now Bangladesh in 1756. And from 1756, it took almost a century until about 1839 or 1840 when the British established their domination in what we know now as Balochistan. So from 1756, starting from here in the British capitol and moving on, this was the extent of the British domain, or the British Empire, until 1946, 1947 when the British quit India.
Another point, a really good point, that I would like to remind you, is that the British had a peculiar system. There were some areas – like these white areas – which were directly ruled by the British and was British India, and the rest – these black spots – which were the princely states, supposedly independent through treaties but under the British domain.
But Balochistan was not even a princely state. It was recognized, and documents show, it was politically a free and independent state, though of course we know that it was under British domination. Of these documents and treaties, I just would like to read one or two quotes about the facts that Balochistan was, in fact, an independent state, recognized by the British and even the founder of Pakistan, Mohammed Ali Jinnah included.
By the way I wanted to say from the very beginning for the journalists, for the research scholars, opinion leaders in this building – there still two most authentic sources. One is a book called, in Afghanistan, Shadow, written by a scholar called Selig Harrison. His book, which I wish he would soon update or write a second volume, should be treated as The New Testament or the Bible on the Baloch. And of course the other book in English, helpful for scholars and for the people who work for State Department is Inayatullah Baloch’s The Problem of Greater Balochistan.
I was talking about the point that Balochistan was treated as an independent state by the British, as mentioned in a quote by one of the Pakistani founding fathers. This is from Inayatullah’s book:
In December 1876, Lord Litton invited the Khan to attend the imperial assemblage in New Delhi in January 1877. The Khan accepted the invitation and took part, together with the chiefs. During the ceremony, British flags were distributed amongst the chiefs of the Indian states. The Khan was not given a banner, and wrote to the Queen explaining the international and constitutional status of Balochistan. He said that the Khan asked to have a banner given to him. It was explained to His Highness, the Khan of the Baloch Confederacy, that banners were only given to your Majesty’s feudalities and the Khan, being an independent prince, could not receive one without compromising his independence.
And just two more quotes. One states briefly that several representatives of the British have described Kalat as a sovereign and independent state. In 1872 Sir Merriweather, who was in charge of the British government’s relations with Kalat, wrote as follows, “There cannot, in my opinion, be the last doubt of the horse which should be followed with regard to Kalat or Balochistan, which it should be correctly termed.” Because the capitol city of Baloch was Kalat, it became known as the State of Kalat, or the Khan of Kalat, and this is what the British Merriweather tells us: that it should be correctly called Balochistan, and that it was a free and independent state.
And just one quote from one of the Pakistani founding fathers, I.I.Chundrigar, for those who know about Pakistani history. “Kalat, which is not an Indian state, and which was brought in relations with the British government on account of its geographical position on the border with India, is just like Afghanistan and Persia (Iran) – an independent, free and sovereign state.”
Another point is this: the British had another gimmick. In order to deprive these princely states – and also Kalat and Nepal – of their freedom and relations, there are some treaties where, in polite ways, the British promised Balochistan and other princely states that they would be responsible for their foreign affairs and for their defense. And so the Khan was told not to worry about a diplomatic court and an army, because the British would defend them and conduct their relations. So they were politely forbidden from having any diplomatic relations. But again, it was a friendly understanding.
What happened in 1947…As you know the Freedom of India Act talks about the princely states and, of course, it was repeated until the end by the British officers, that Balochistan was a free state and when they leave, Balochistan would have the right to declare itself free without condition.
But the princely states’ understanding, under the Freedom of India Act arrangement between the British and Congress and the Indian Muslim League, was that they would have three choices. The head of the state, taking into consideration the will of their subjects, would have the right to remain independent as a free state, or join Pakistan, or join India. Balochistan is a place where both the head of state – the Khan – as well as the two elected chambers of Balochistan’s parliament – the Aiwan-e-Khas & Aiwan-e-Aam - formally met, formally talked, and formally decided, that they would have friendly relations with Pakistan, but are a free state and declared themselves to remain free.
Mr. Jinnah was the attorney for the Khan of Kalat, his legal advisor, and paid very expensively. And he recognized to the end the creation of an independent state of Balochistan, even if a Pakistan didn’t come into existence. So, what happened then? Though declaring its independence, Balochistan lost its independence.
There were two problems: Their legal representative was Mr. Jinnah. So, that was the irony. But a second, more serious problem was this: The British had developed, during their 100 or so years of rule in India, had developed the world’s largest army and the world’s largest and most efficient bureaucracy. Since Mr. Atlee was in a hurry, 30% of the army was given to Mr. Jinnah who was now in Pakistan’s government, while the Khan was left praying the British for responsibility for its defense. And so, Balochistan’s freedom was crushed again and again and again. That is the British role.
I come to the Cold War period where the West supported any dictator, especially in Asia and Africa, which would be their puppet or ally in the Cold War. So, this is another reason for its persistence. And now, the Cold War is over, and we hope that Americans – I am an American citizen anyhow – will at least remain neutral. We don’t want anything from them, simply that they withdraw their diplomatic and military support of the Musharraf government. If we - the Baloch, the Sindhis, the Sarraikis, and the Pashtuns – need any help, we are sure that God will send another General Aroura to us, whether our Punjabi or Mohajir friends like it or not.
Someone named Zoya provided a list of reasons for Americans to support an independent Balochistan. But I would like to also add to the list that in lands ruled by the four core Muslim groups – by Arabs, Persians, Muslims, and Turks – and the Thekedars of Islam in the subcontinent – i.e. Punjabi and Urdu-speakers, we know Pakistan’s founding fathers preach spiritual war, and Iqbal speaks very clearly against democracy, saying for example, “democracy is no good and we need dictators.” In Farsi, he says, ”keep away from democratic systems and be a mature and perfect slave.” “Yes, sir!” to General Pervez Musharraf, for example. Don’t talk about democracy,
These are some of Zoya’s reasons for Americans to support the idea of an independent Balochistan:
(1) Pakistan is a burden to the U.S., and depends on the U.S. to survive. 85% of the budget goes to the military, which does not pay back the debts.
(2) Pakistan is too corrupt to be brought back to the civilized world. No government has ever completed his five years in office . (3) Pakistan is of no value to America economically or strategically after the Cold War. As Dr. Selig Harrison has written, 72% of present Pakistan consists of Balochistan, Sindh and Pashtun regions. And if we had Sarraiki regions, we only half of Punjab would remain.
(4) Pakistan is a fundamentalist country and pro-Taliban.
Skipping to the last point. After every great war in history, international borders have been redrawn. This redrawing has usually helped the cause of freedom, peace and prosperity, and it’s a service for democracy and freedom. It should therefore be a necessary and logical conclusion in this great war on Islamic terrorism to redraw some borders in the Islamic world. Only this shock treatment may convince the ruling major groups – the Arabs, Turks, Persians and Punjabis and Mohajirs – to consider a reformation and reinterpretation of Islam in the 21st Century.
The only way is the shock treatment, but whether the West helps us with this shock treatment or not, we – we the Baloch, we the Sindhis, we the Pashtuns, we the Sarraikis, we the Berbers, we the Kurds – we are going to have our freedom. If you help us we will thank you. If you don’t, it will remain a dishonor. But please Americans, I am here, a Baloch person, tell your Congress, tell your governments, tell your president, stop supporting the Punjabi and Urdu-speaking ruling tyrants in Pakistan.
And though I have become a Democrat for most of my life, I have become a little bit milder since I learned that the Kurds may not been betrayed in Iraq, so we will be your next and permanent friends, but not puppets.