Encouraging debate

Following the cancellation of the Balochistan event at LUMS and Sabeen Mahmud’s brutal murder after organising a similar event at The Second Floor, there have been concerted efforts by certain quarters in the electronic and social media to demonise and harass intellectuals and rights activists who had condemned these incidents and protested against blatant violation of the fundamental rights to life, freedom of speech, expression and assembly.
These incidents and the subsequent harassment campaign create a strong impression that, regardless of the right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by international human rights covenants as well as the constitution of Pakistan, debate and discussion on the situation in Balochistan will lead to trouble. Especially if it entails any critique on the state’s narrative and conduct vis-a-vis that peripheral province.
In a country where, despite its ratification of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and express guarantees provided by its constitution, you can count any number of issues and topics that are out of bound for public discussion and where breaking the taboo often entails violent reaction from state as well as non-state actors, we now have another addition to a long list of martyrs. Countering through all peaceful and lawful means this attempt to silence and scare is necessary for safeguarding basic freedoms in this country and to reclaim the space for a meaningful and inclusive debate on the issue of Balochistan which is absolutely essential for its resolution.
A mindset of denial and fear is evident. Denial that the Baloch have legitimate rights and grievances which the state has historically failed to respect and address; that it is the denial of these rights and lack of redress for these grievances that has forced the Baloch to tread the precarious path of separatism time and again; that there have been serious rights violations ranging from forced disappearances to torture and extrajudicial killings which have been documented by worthy state institutions such as the Supreme Court of Pakistan as well as various well known independent organisations like the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan and the Human Right Watch; and that the state’s heavy-handed approach is flawed and counterproductive and requires serious re-thinking and re-evaluation.
The element of fear is also visible; fear of the possibility that any inclusive debate on Balochistan would highlight the gory details of what is happening in the peripheries and expose the state to criticism; fear that it might create sympathy and support for the separatists domestically and internationally; and also, that highlighting Balochistan’s problems might scare away potential investors who are expected to undertake grandiose ‘development’ projects in the area.
Therefore, as ridiculous, oppressive and unimaginative as it may look, it seems to have been decided that the way to deal with the disgruntled Baloch is to sweep the issue of their unaddressed grievances under the carpet, ensure a complete information blackout and pretend that the problem does not exist, leaving it solely to the military arm of the state to deal with the insurgency which is merely a symptom of the underlying problem of disaffection and alienation.
The grossly over simplified narrative which is employed to justify this absurd approach is equally bizarre. This frequently peddled and aggressively popularised narrative portrays the insurgents as a group of foreign-funded ‘miscreants’ whose only purpose is to promote violence and instability in the province at the behest of certain foreign intelligence agencies, while the state is portrayed as a modern civilising force which intends to ‘develop’ the province and ‘civilise’ its tribal people who have been forced into living a ‘savage’, ‘backward’ way of life by their power hungry tribal elders.
The very usage of the ‘civilised-savage’ dichotomy in this narrative, a construct of colonial epistemology which has historically been employed to justify ‘otherisation’, persecution and exploitation of native populations by colonial powers, says a lot about the exploitative nature of the relationship between the Pakistani state and the people of Balochistan. The fact is that the state, with all its magnificent narratives portraying it as the emancipator of the Baloch, has only been interested in exploitation of the geo-strategic value and rich natural resources available in the province, and has been comfortable with making convenient arrangements for this purpose with the same tribal elders who according to its own narrative are a hindrance to ‘development’, provided that they agree to abide by and enforce the dictates of state policy in the province.
For many Baloch, the exploitative nature of this relationship is evident and they see no chances or possibility of changing the nature of this relationship or the exploitation it gives rise to, given the unresponsive attitude of the state and their position of complete powerlessness within the state structure. They are disgruntled and alienated and prone to adopting the route of militancy. Abducting, torturing and killing them will not end the sense of alienation and powerlessness in the people of the province but only aggravate it.
Acknowledgement of this reality does not amount, however, to condoning the blatant acts of violence committed by the separatists against the pro-state Baloch as well as the non-Baloch ‘settlers’ in the province. These two categories are caught in the midst of a vicious cycle of violence that finds its basis in the exploitative policies of the state. Protecting their fundamental rights is also the responsibility of the state which can only be fulfilled by taking effective and meaningful steps towards resolution of the conflict for the benefit of all inhabitants of the province.
Any meaningful step towards resolving Balochistan would begin with overcoming the mindset of denial and fear, dismantling the flawed narrative that underlies the state’s interaction with the people of the province and replacing it with an acknowledgment of the genuine sense of powerlessness and alienation among the Baloch. Such steps would pave the way for embracing the political option, which is the only way to resolve the current crisis.
It is important to realise that Balochistan can never be resolved through bullets and bombs or ports and highways, but by treating the Baloch as equals, not as ‘savages’, ‘tribal’, ‘traitors’ or the ‘other’, by addressing their sense of powerlessness and alienation, by including them in the decision-making process, understanding and respecting their culture and traditions, shunning the military option and encouraging a political solution through an honest and dedicated effort on part of the highest civilian and military decision-makers of the state.
To initiate such processes, we need more debate and discussion on Balochistan at every possible platform, and more awareness and information about what is happening in the province, in order to develop a better understanding of the various complexities of the problem. Efforts made in this regard by the academia, the intelligentsia and members of the civil society must be appreciated and encouraged rather than banned on the flawed pretext of preservation of national security.
If preservation of national security is indeed the concern, then those pursuing the agenda of banning such debates and harassing intellectuals and academics by labelling them as ‘traitors’ are doing no good. The country’s integrity and survival lies only in upholding its constitution and protecting the fundamental rights and freedoms of all citizens without any discrimination.

The writer is a lawyer based in Islamabad and tweets @mhaiderimtiaz