Another Bangladesh?

Of late, there’s been incessant debate about the possibility of Balochistan turning into another Bangladesh. While retrospection and introspection are vital parts of a nation’s journey, this comparison is lazy analysis at best.

I’ll explain why.

First, the historical context: the formation of Bangladesh was part of a much larger historical event. As colonial power around the world diminished, new post-colonial realities were born. Colonial-made borders ceased to exist. In the decade preceding the formation of Bangladesh, 50 new countries gained independence – 17 of these in a single year of 1960. In the last 30 years, only six new countries have gained independence.

Separatism or independence, while commonly accepted in the 1960s and 1970s, is unwelcome in the modern world. The case of Catalonian independence is a good case study in this. When the elected representatives of the Catalan parliament unilaterally declared independence, they had to face the wrath of the Spanish state. The national police brutally came down on the protesters. Leaders of the independence movement were tried in court on charges of sedition. Most of them had to seek refuge in France. They were sentenced to nine years for their actions.

Then there is the geography; Bangladesh was totally cut off from the rest of the country with 1200 miles of enemy territory in between. Balochistan is right next door. While Bangladesh was encircled by an enemy state that had openly declared war on Pakistan, there is no such possibility in the current case.

This is important because without the open intervention of the Indian army in 1971, there probably would have been no Bangladesh. While Indian trained and controlled Mukti Bahini and other assorted militias were responsible for much bloodshed, separation was only possible due to India’s role. The Pakistan Army did not surrender to any ragtag militia; the instrument of surrender was signed with the Indian army.

People also seem to miss the point that East Pakistan was a majority versus minority struggle. Not only were ethnic Bengalis an absolute majority in East Pakistan, but they were also in the majority in United Pakistan, and felt subjugated by the minority. In Balochistan’s case, things are pretty different. In many areas of Balochistan, ethnic Baloch are in the minority. More ethnic Baloch are living in Punjab than in Quetta.

Then, there is the case of technological advancements: guerrilla warfare is now a thing of the past. Unarmed drones, fighter jets, precision artillery and other such military developments have vastly diminished the chance of success for any guerrilla movement. This is why the Kurdistan Workers Party had to give up arms. This is also why the revolutionary armed force of Colombia (FARC) failed. These were the two largest and longest-running guerrilla wars of our times.

And since guerrilla warfare alone cannot lead to separatism, it brings us to the next question. Who is going to invade Pakistan? In Bangladesh’s case, India was right next door. Here none of the neighbours of Balochistan will ever come out in full support for a separatist Baloch cause. Baloch insurgents will have to face the wrath of the Pakistani state alone. Hit and run attacks, short-term taking over of checkpoints and roads won’t cause much nuisance to the Pakistani state. But the reprisal from the state will end in much bloodshed.

In large multi-ethnic countries, separatist movements are a common occurrence. Just look next door, the largest democracy in the world has at least a dozen separatist movements. And it’s not just India; there is Nigeria, there is Russia, and the list goes on. In many of these countries, separatist movements attack economic and civilian targets. And the state pushes back. The cycle goes on, but doesn’t lead to independence. So if anyone thinks that an independent Balochistan can come into existence, or there are any similarities between today’s Balochistan and 1971’s Bangladesh, they live in a fool’s paradise.

The modern world is an irritant to the idea of independence, and six new countries in the last 30 years prove that. The latest addition to the world’s map, South Sudan, came into existence around 14 years ago. They now have a new civil war raging on. Independence is not the solution anymore.

The writer is a journalist.