Balochistan Azadi and Other Pipedreams

by Asher Kohn on 10/29/2009 · 9 comments

The suicide attack in Pishin, Iran a week or two ago was probably one of the stranger, more out-of-context bits of news to hit the D.C. policy world since the Obama Administration and the refocusing on Afghanistan. It just sort of screws up any black-white image of Central Asia even more. From the Beltway’s perspective, I can’t imagine how a suicide attack (bad guys) on the Revolutionary Guard Corps of Iran (bad guys), who were meeting local Balochi leaders to discuss Sunni-Shi’a relations (good thing) can possibly be parsed.

And apologies in advance for the wiki-heaviness of my citing here, but I’m just trying to establish a basic background, if you’re more interested, this seems to be the definitive history and this is basically the point I’m trying to make. This is the Kaplanerrific version. And if you have more sources that you think I ought to use, or that shine a different light on what I have to say, by all means just drop it in the comments.

Jundallah, the group who carried out the attacks, are Sunni partisans, but not Balochi separatists. Abdolmalek Rigi seems to want to work within the Iran state to get better rights for Sunnis within the Islamic Republic, like a late-stage Apo. The serious discussion of their tactics (targeting Shi’a civilians and IRGC members) is less relevant than their goal (destablization of Iran) and their perceived backing (United States and/or Pakistan). The attack was seen as an American-related attack on Iran to some extent. I wish I had the Farsi skills to link to those newstories, but Press TV is sometimes enough. It’s something else that can be construed as American meddling, which ISAF certainly doesn’t need. And it likely allows Ahmedinijad to pander to his base.

Balochis are kind of the unmentioned minority of South-Central Asia for reasons I haven’t fully understood. I’m presuming its because Balochistan is sort of the littoral part of Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan: underdeveloped and far from the centrality of the state. But this can’t last. The Trans-Afghan Pipeline and any sort of transit from Central Asia to the Arabian Sea relies on development in Baluchistan.

Baluchi development isn’t high on Iran, Afghanistan, or Pakistan’s radar (Gwadar [maps] notwithstanding…but even Gwadar has a lot more in common with Mumbai, Muscat, or Singapore than it does with Jiwani or Pishin). All three of those countries seemingly don’t have the sort of resources or the political willpower to really get involved in domestic development outside of their own pet projects, either.

So development in Balochistan would be beneficial for just about every party involved, it seems. It would allow for another export for oil and lots of mined resources, it would calm down one more tense spot in a region that isn’t looking for more tense spots, and it would seem to be something that the US could agree with Iran about. But I personally don’t think it’s likely to happen.

Would there be just too much domestic anger at recognition of Baluchi rights and any sort of Baluchi autonomy in Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan? I just can’t imagine any of those three governments doing anything that would even smell like redrawing the lines on the map.

This post was written by...

– author of 33 posts on Registan.net.

{ 9 comments }

Ahad_Abdurahmon October 30, 2009 at 12:24 am

Is this a proposal for copy-pasting ‘Kurdistan’ project further down to the South?
Let us assume Kurdistan, Balucistan, whatever nation-state projects succeed and the bad guys like Iran and potentially bad guys like Turkey are messed up. What is going to happen next?
Some jerks will claim power based on nationalistic rhetoric and establish another repressive regime. I simply cannot imagine a better scenario and do not see exactly who is going to win.

Reply

anan October 30, 2009 at 10:26 am

Asher, “Jundullah” are clearly the bad guys, and the international community should work with Iran to crush them.

Jundullah is closely linked to Sipah e Sahaba and Lashkar e Jhanvi. Both the later groups declared Osama Bin Laden their supreme leader or emir when Osama Bin Laden formed the International Islamic Front in 1998 (all fifteen or more global terrorist groups that joined publicly declared Osama Bin Laden to be their emir.)

In fact, the only Al Qaeda linked groups that Saddam Hussein really did back were LeJ and Sipah e Sahaba (and maybe Ansar al Islam in the North.) Saddam backed them precisely because they attacked Iran and the Shia. Interestingly, Zarkawi worked with LeJ and Sipah e Sahaba for many years in the 1980s killing Shiites for snacks. Which suggests that they were involved in massacres of Iraqi Shia too.

The Shia killing thugs of LeJ, Sipah e Sahaba and Jundullah have mass murdered many Hazara Shia in Afghanistan (referring to pre 9/11), many Pakistani Shia, and Iranians. Anyone who mass murders Shiites on the scale these homocidal murderers do, will also murder Sufi muslims, and non Muslims, if given the chance. This is why they need to be eliminated, for the good of us all.

Few things offend me as much as the implicit notion that it is okay to mass murder Shiite civilians because they are not one of “us,” or because “we don’t have a dog in that fight.” If this is our attitude, why should anyone work with us against terrorists, or have compassion for us when we get our next 9/11?

Reply

Asher Kohn October 30, 2009 at 10:38 am

No, most definitely not a proposal for copy-pasting Kurdistan, for the exact reasons you just mentioned. The entire Wilson-esque idea of nation-states seems, to me personally, to be a bit too 20th century of a viewpoint.

I probably ought to have elaborated more, but the entire idea of turning Gwadar into an entrepot is to circumvent Iran and the Persian Gulf while still getting trade through to Central Asia.

This (fairly dated…c. 2004) link shows the basic plan: turn Gwadar into Pakistan’s own little Doha/Dubai sort of port: http://www.strategypage.com/militaryforums/72-6970.aspx

They talk about “this will ACTUALLY help Balochis, not just pay lip service” but when the only jobs offered are going to be Dubai-esque unskilled laborers, I’m not really sure if they mean it. And even THAT was an election ago in Pakistan…the talk is “it’ll be far from India” rather than “it’ll be close to Taliban-controlled entities”. And all the more, I’d like to see how creating a megaport run by a corrupt regime would do anything to curb, rather than aid, weapons, drugs, and human smuggling.

The entire hope for Gwadar is diametrically opposed to any hope for Balochistan is the point I am trying to make, I suppose.

Reply

sarbaaz Baloch October 31, 2009 at 6:21 am

Balochistan is not the territory of punjabis, persians or afghans. It is the historical land of the Baloch people, so if we want to do anything about Balochistan then the first one we should contact should be a Baloch not a occupier of Baloch land.

As far as Balochs are concerned then they want the unity and independence of Balochistan and to acheive this goal they are struggling in all means, Politically and Armed.

Untill Balochistan is not Independent there wont be peace in the region for the occupiers, so its best for the international community to support Baloch people for their goal of independence in order to bring peace, development in the region and have good relations with Balochistan government to maintain peace and bring projects into Balochistan.

Reply

Christian October 31, 2009 at 6:23 am
knownunknown October 31, 2009 at 7:22 am
knownunknown October 31, 2009 at 7:47 am

Balochistan is definatley very complex, only slightly more so than HTML links though, apologies for my first comment.

Reply

Ahad_Abdurahmon October 31, 2009 at 8:35 pm

Asher, thank you for your response. I have heard about that port proposal last year, I think it won’t hurt to have a port like this, but I am not sure about its competitiveness.
Call it a Wilsonian or Westphalian, it is still the same useless (for Turko-Iranian region stretching from Bosporus down to Gwadar. There are zillions of little ethnic groups living and you cannot have neither peace nor justice for them all with a nationalistic state. I am not even talking about economic progress.

Reply

Dafydd November 3, 2009 at 10:06 am

I had heard that Jundullah were funded out of Saudi Arabia?

The other thing I commonly hear when talking to people from this area of the world is an association of the Balochs with drug dealing (in the same way North Africans speak of Morrocans) does anyone else recognise that stereotype?

Reply

Previous post:

Next post: