Balochistan, Kalat and the great game

Kalat was no different. If today some people seek to reopen that

question, then fairness demands that the status of all 562 princely
states should be reconsidered de novo

A new game is unfolding on the South Asian chessboard. The pawns in this game
are the common Pakistanis living in the province of Balochistan. The Indian prime
ministers statement on Balochistan should be an eye opener for those who doubt
that the game is afoot. Those who think in terms of strategy and supply routes
know that the idea involves blocking Chinas access to the Gulf via Pakistan. Gwadar
is the focal point of the game. The tall claims of the so-called Baloch separatists and
regional and global backers are at best special pleadings.
First of all, let us get the history and geography right. The Baloch separatist claim
rests on the way accession of the Kalat state was procured by Pakistan in March
1948. Let this be a geography lesson for those who have become the loudest voices
for separation of Balochistan from Pakistan. Kalat, the princely state, is only a
landlocked subsection of the province of Balochistan. The rest of Balochistan
formed British Balochistan that became a part of Pakistan immediately at the time
of independence in 1947, with the exception of Gwadar, which was procured from
the Sultanate of Oman in the late 1950s.
One of the earliest endorsers of British Balochistans decision to join Pakistan was
none other than Nawab Akbar Khan Bugti, a chieftain who controlled the Bugti
area. His conversion to the Baloch separatist cause in the later part of his life was
rank opportunism as had been the case with every decision he took. His falling out
with the Pakistani establishment, of which he had been a trusted ally for 50 years,
was essentially about gas royalties, which he believed were his own personal Godgiven right. How Bugti treated his tribesmen, those unfortunate people living under
his suzerainty is well known and needs no repetition. It is amazing that a man like
that is being portrayed posthumously as some sort of a freedom fighter.
Every inch of the so-called Bugti lands are sovereign territory of Pakistan by law, by
history and by fact. There is no court and no tribunal in the world that would
dispute this. I am sorry to break it to people like Akbar Bugtis grandson,
Brahumdagh Bugti, and that hilarious joker from Toronto, Tarek Fateh, but the
world has ceased to recognise divinely ordained rule of primogeniture to personal
fiefdoms as a convincing argument for creating new states or for holding on to
territory. For example, the people of the United Kingdom can, if they are so

inclined, depose their Queen and declare a Republic by a simple constitutional act.
If Saudi Arabia did not have the oil, its tribal rulers too would have been deposed a
long time ago. Primitive hereditary claims by tribal chiefs over tracts of land may
have historically shaped certain states, like Saudi Arabia and UAE, but it is sure as
hell not going to be the basis of new states.
So now we come to the issue of the Kalat state, which I have mentioned was a
landlocked princely state, surrounded on all sides by the newly formed state of
Pakistan in 1947. Under it there were two smaller feudatories of Lasbela and
Kharan, the rulers of which had been itching to accede to Pakistan. Indeed it was
Jinnah who refused to deal with them over the head of Khan of Kalat. Khan of Kalat
was a close personal friend of Jinnah and had, by his own admission, assured the
founder of Pakistan that he would join Pakistan. The Khan admitted as much to
Munir Hussain, former chief secretary of Balochistan. This is what the Khan of Kalat
had to say: Besides this, I had verbally assured the Quaid-e-Azam that I would
accede to Pakistan as soon as it was established. When the time came to accede, I
started vacillating and I was conscious of the fact that it had caused great anguish
to the Quaid-e-Azam, particularly in the last days of his life. I was misguided by
some Baloch leaders [such as Ghaus Baksh Bizenjo]. I continue to regret my
behaviour, and when I am in low spirits such as today, the whole thing haunts me.
That is why I requested you to come to me so that I could open my heart to you.
On March 27, 1948, the Khan of Kalat signed a valid and binding document of
accession, which federated his state with the Dominion of Pakistan as it was then.
This document of accession is as valid and binding as any of the documents of
accessions signed by princely states that joined India. India, it must be
remembered, had coerced most of the states that joined it in 1947-1948, the
bloodiest being Hyderabad, where it carried out one of the worst massacres in
subcontinents history. Jawaharlal Nehru had then appointed the Pandit Sunderlal
Commission. Its findings with respect to that operation were so harrowing that
Nehru buried it, and it only came to light in 2013. The most conservative estimates
of the government commission put the number of dead between 27,000-40,000 in
a span of a few days.
There was massive rape and loot of Muslims that went on. This is how India took
over the Hyderabad state. Pakistan by comparison did no such thing in Kalat or
with any other princely state in Pakistan. Would those who claim that Kalats
document of accession was obtained by coercion also raise voice for the
independence of Hyderabad Deccan from India? The truth is that no princely state
in the Indian subcontinent was allowed to go independent. There were 562 princely
states in the undivided India in 1947. Kalat was no different. If today some people

seek to reopen that question, then fairness demands that the status of all 562
princely states should be reconsidered de novo. That would mean one-third of the
territory of present day India.
Therefore, I am not convinced that India is interested in Baloch separatists demand
for self-determination to succeed. What it wants, along with others, is to keep
Pakistans Balochistan province in a perpetual state of unrest so that the Gwadar
route does not take off. Of course, there is the question of Kashmir. Instead of
resolving the Kashmir issue, and thereafter working with Pakistan and China for an
Asian success story, Indias current government would much rather keep both
Pakistan and India impoverished. Such is the nature of global geopolitics. The losers
inevitably are the people, in whose name we play such games.

The writer is a lawyer based in Lahore and the author of the book Mr Jinnah:
Myth and Reality. He can be contacted via twitter @therealylh and through
his email address yasser.hamdani@gmail.com