Update: The Balochistan Project

The January post for this blog was about "The Balochistan Project" (see below).  The Balochistan Project is an NGO that was built from the Thailand government's suppression of our peaceful conference in November 2016.  The Balochistan Project is an amalgam of activists and academics, committed to informing people about the Baloch people, Balochistan, and the challenges they face, particularly from the occupying powers of Pakistan and Iran; leading to justice for the Baloch.

Recently, we incorporated as a not-for-profit in the United States and have been granted official 501(c)3 status by the United States government.  That means we are a tax free body and can put all of our funds to work furthering the stated aims of our NGO.  Our job is to gather, validate, and disseminate information about the Baloch and Balochistan.  Many Baloch leaders already support that effort.

We have put up a web site, www.balochistanproject.com, where readers can choose among Balochi, Urdu, Farsi, and English.  Soon we expect to set up a mechanism for donations that will allow others to support this great effort to bring justice to the Baloch.

Dr. Richard L. Benkin
President, The Balochistan Project

An End to Pakistan--or a New Beginning?

For some time now, I have familiarized myself with several nationalities living in what is now Pakistan:  Baloch, Sindh, Pashtun, Kashmiris, Gilgit Baltistanis, Punjabi Hindus, and others.  Since Pakistan's creation in 1947--a statement by the Indian Subcontinent Muslim League that Muslims and Hindus cannot live together--these national groups have been chafing under various forms of oppression and the attempted eradication of their national characteristics.

Pakistan is an artificial, polyglot rump state that was once part of a large "Indian" entity; in 1971, its lost its remaining, non-contiguous Bengali portion (then called East Pakistan) when it broke away to form Bangladesh.  What makes Pakistan different from India, the other part of the British Raj's partition of the greater subcontinent?  Although Pakistan did not declare itself an Islamic Republic, with Islam as the official state religion, until 1956; it was in fact created as a Muslim-dominated country.  This is contrary to the history of India, which has maintained its status as a secular state, with no official state religion. Additionally, Indian authorities come from a range of its subgroups and nationalities.  Pakistan is and has been dominated by one:  Punjabis, and specifically Muslim Punjabis.  Further, although India has seen many incidents of serious inter-communal violence by Muslims and Hindus against one another; the minority Muslims enjoy a range of protections that the state has enforced with vigor.  Such has not been the lot for Hindus in Pakistan who complain--with a good deal of evidence--that Pakistan is guilty of an anti-Hindu jihad.  I have been to the camps in New Delhi of Hindu refugees from Pakistan and taken the refugees' testimony of their oppression--both in violent incidents and in regular day-to-day oppression of Hindus, including forced conversion which the government does not criminalize.  Thus, in Pakistan's 1951 census, Hindus were counted at 12.9 percent of the population.  In 2014, they were down to 1.85 percent with a net decrease in population of about 17 percent.  In contract, from 1951 to 2011, Indian Muslims grew from 9.8 percent to 14.2 percent with a net increase in population of almost 400 percent.

Internationally Pakistan has a well-founded reputation for oppressing its own people, supporting an intelligence service that has been defined by some countries as a terrorist group, proliferating nuclear weaponry, massive corruption, and sponsoring worldwide terrorism, especially against India.  These national groups--especially the Baloch (predominantly Muslim), the Pashtun (predominantly Muslim), and the Sindhi (predominantly Hindu)--offer a way out of this morass.  All of them have a history that eschews an official religions and welcomes others as equal members of the same polity; regardless of faith, they are strongly anti-Islamist; they believe in allowing different ethnic and national groups to develop as nations (whether within a confederation or independently); and they are fighting against the human rights atrocities that have become daily life for many inside the nation of Pakistan.  The next few years will be critical.  Pakistan and China have been developing the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), which the Pakistanis believe will make them immune to demands from democracies and those fighting radical Islamic terror.  That expansion of Chinese dominance all the way to the warm water port of Gwadar in Balochistan, threatens both US and Russian interests and could be the basis for the sort of common interest cooperation suggested by US President Donald Trump.  Many youth among the Baloch and Pashtun, have been looking for the West to support their insurgencies but are finding that the only real support they get is from Islamist groups.  If we do not support these efforts, it's likely that more will join with Islamists in the (probably mistaken) hope that it will bring relief to their peoples.  And there are regional implications:  Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi already has expressed support for the Baloch and has interests in what happens to its perennial rival; Afghanistan often identifies as a Pashtun state; and Balochistan is occupied by both Pakistan and Iran.  There are many restive national minorities in both countries.  Pakistan is only about half Punjabi; and Iran is only about 40 percent Persian.  There is a lot of opportunity to keep those terror-supporting nations busy trying to stay together as states, such that their pursuit of international goals would be suppressed.

We have the opportunity, and many of the leaders of these groups have told me they are hopeful of a change in US policy that will help their causes while they together end up advancing US interests. But the clock is ticking.

The Balochistan Project

One of the things that came out of the Thailand government's anti-democratic actions against our peaceful meeting (see December 9 blogpost); was a decision for us to create an NGO that would be the repository of validated information about human rights atrocities against the Baloch by the occupying powers.  "The Balochistan Project" will be a sharpened sword pointed against those who continue to commit these atrocities and suppress Baloch nationality--which existed before their own.

Next month, The Balochistan Project will convene its inaugural gathering in London.  Many of the principles who will attend have been working on our answer to Pakistani and Iranian oppression since the incident they supported in Thailand.  Thus, their anti-democratic actions in fact are having precisely the opposite impact that they intended.

The Balochistan Project is committed to truth and justice; that is, we have developed methods to verify the numerous reports already coming to us; such that we will provide world leaders with information that we know will stand up against by denials by Pakistan, Iran, and their enablers.

Principles of The Balochistan Project also have been reaching out to or contacted by other oppressed nationalities from what is now called Pakistan:  secular Pashtun, Sindhi, Punjabi Hindus, and others.  Stay tune, because you will be hearing a lot more about The Balochistan Project and eventually, the liberation of these nationalities.  Victims of a real occupation.

Narendra Modi's Game Changing Action Part II

World leaders from the US to Europe and Asia all claim to be fighting the scourge of terrorism.  (US President Barack Obama refuses to call it what it is, radical Islamist terrorism, but that is what they all are fighting.)  One near constant of this fight against Islamists has been the reactive nature
of their actions.  A terrorist tries to blow up a plane with his shoe, and now we have to take off our shoes at the airport.  Terrorists try to use liquid explosives to blow up planes going from the UK to the US, and we have to restrict the size of liquids in our carry-on baggage.  And so on and so on.  They act; we react.  In this war so far, the bad guys usually set the agenda, and we allow them to do it.

On May 26, 2014, all that changed when Narendra Modi was elected India's Prime Minister in a landslide for his Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).  Perhaps not immediately. In fact, Modi began his tenure as PM with an unprecedented gesture of friendship by inviting Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif to his inauguration and for meetings that would hopefully usher in a new era of Indo-Pak cooperation.  Unfortunately, despite Modi's gesture of friendship, the Pakistanis continued their provocations against their neighbor, and the latest attacks in Uri, Kashmir were the final straw.  They had supported anti-Indian terrorism before during Modi's tenure, but the Uri attacks went to far.

The day after I predicted he would, Modi ordered pinpoint strikes against the Lashkar e-Taiba terror camps in Pakistan occupied Kashmir.  Lashkar has been operating freely with the Pakistani government's tacit and sometimes active support, and Modi's actions sent a strong message to the Pakistanis that--unlike his predecessors--he would not flinch from defending the lives of his people. After the Pakistani directed attacks in Mumbai on November 26, 2008, in which 164 people were murdered and over 300 wounded, the previous Indian government failed to take action; and continued its craven behavior as Pakistan steadfastly refused Indian demands for justice and prosecution of the terrorists.  They continued their obstinacy even after the so-called "American Taliban," David Headley exposed their involvement.  But the recent Indian strikes against the terrorists made it clear that the Pakistanis no longer could act with impunity.  It also sent a message to terrorists and would be defenders that the game has changed.

Moreover, this was not just a reaction against the Pakistani terror attack.  Earlier, Modi had expressed support for a free Balochistan and said that Pakistan would have to answer for its atrocities against the Baloch.  (I work with the Baloch and can confirm the tragic history of Pakistani--and Iranian--human rights violations and atrocities against them.)  There are other restive groups struggling against the Pakistani occupation of their homeland, and Narendra Modi has given them all a new sense of hope.  If they take action, especially cooperatively, it could spell the end of Pakistan.  Look for a Balochistan government-in-exile to form in the coming months.

The world just changed, and we need to thank Narendra Modi for it and for ushering in a new era in the fight against radical Islamists.

Narendra Modi's Game Changing Action Part II

World leaders from the US to Europe and Asia all claim to be fighting the scourge of terrorism.  (US President Barack Obama refuses to call it what it is, radical Islamist terrorism, but that is what they all are fighting.)  One near constant of this fight against Islamists has been the reactive nature
of their actions.  A terrorist tries to blow up a plane with his shoe, and now we have to take off our shoes at the airport.  Terrorists try to use liquid explosives to blow up planes going from the UK to the US, and we have to restrict the size of liquids in our carry-on baggage.  And so on and so on.  They act; we react.  In this war so far, the bad guys usually set the agenda, and we allow them to do it.

On May 26, 2014, all that changed when Narendra Modi was elected India's Prime Minister in a landslide for his Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).  Perhaps not immediately. In fact, Modi began his tenure as PM with an unprecedented gesture of friendship by inviting Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif to his inauguration and for meetings that would hopefully usher in a new era of Indo-Pak cooperation.  Unfortunately, despite Modi's gesture of friendship, the Pakistanis continued their provocations against their neighbor, and the latest attacks in Uri, Kashmir were the final straw.  They had supported anti-Indian terrorism before during Modi's tenure, but the Uri attacks went to far.

The day after I predicted he would, Modi ordered pinpoint strikes against the Lashkar e-Taiba terror camps in Pakistan occupied Kashmir.  Lashkar has been operating freely with the Pakistani government's tacit and sometimes active support, and Modi's actions sent a strong message to the Pakistanis that--unlike his predecessors--he would not flinch from defending the lives of his people. After the Pakistani directed attacks in Mumbai on November 26, 2008, in which 164 people were murdered and over 300 wounded, the previous Indian government failed to take action; and continued its craven behavior as Pakistan continually refused Indian demands for justice and prosecution of the terrorists; even after the so-called "American Taliban," David Headley exposed the Pakistani involvement.  But the recent Indian strikes against the terrorists made it clear that the Pakistanis no longer could act with impunity.  Beyond that, it sent a message to terrorists and would be defenders that the game has changed.

Moreover, this was not just a reaction against the Pakistani terror attack.  Earlier, Modi had expressed support for a free Balochistan and said that Pakistan would have to answer for its atrocities.  (I work with the Baloch and can confirm the tragic history of Pakistani--and Iranian--human rights violations and atrocities against the Baloch.)  There are other restive groups struggling against the Pakistani occupation of their homeland, and Narendra Modi has given them all a new sense of hope.  If they take action, especially cooperatively, it could spell the end of Pakistan.  Look for a Balochistan government-in-exile to form in the coming months.

The world just changed, and we need to thank Narendra Modi for it and for ushering in a new era in the fight against radical Islamista.

Narendra Modi's Game Changing Action

Indian Prime Minister has been talking about Balochistan--a lot, including this on August 13, 2016, Pakistan "bombs its own citizens using fighter planes [and will] have to answer to the world for the atrocities committed by it against people in Balochistan and POK."  To be sure, it was another clear message that the craven days of Modi's predecessors are gone, and that India will no longer roll over for Pakistan.  It also was something that few democratically elected leaders have done in this existential war against radical Islam and its enablers:  Prime Minister Modi took the fight to the enemy.

How reactive and predictable are we in the face of this enemy!  Some sad sack tries to set his shoe on fire on a plane, and we have to take off our shoes before we can board.  A few amateurs try to blow up planes with liquid explosives, and we can't take our bottle of water with us.   For years, New Delhi danced to Islamabad's tune, allowing Pakistan to commit regular violations in Kashmir then accusing India of "atrocities"; driving out Hindus then saying "popular sentiment" demands an Indian withdrawal--and India does nothing.  I saw the previous government give on point after point even after Pakistan trained and funded terrorists to attack India.

No more; not with Prime Minister Narendra Modi.  Adding to the man's accomplishment, his enemies, foreign and domestic, were ready to paint him as a racist, warmonger, and anything else they could use; but he has been able to bring India to this self-respecting position without acting in ways that make those screeds at all credible.  Even here in the United States, there is a strong current to replace our decades long Pakistan-ties with Indian ones.  And Modi's politically-motivated detractors on Capitol Hill have gone silent.

Returning to Balochistan, much of the world has been obsessed with a non-existent occupation in the Middle East while ignoring a very real and brutal one in Pakistan.  Baloch, Pashtun, Gilgit Baltstanis, Sindhi, and Kashmiris all will tell you that.  Perhaps other world leaders need to take a lesson from Modi ji and stop letting our enemies define the agenda or tell us what is just

Islam's diversity opens gates for victory over Islamism

Many people in the west are desperately trying to find an answer to the scourge of radical Islam.  There are at least two problems facing them:  many push back at the thought of identifying a religion with terrorism (which often finds people at the poles of bigotry or fecklessness); lack of thorough and uncluttered information about Islam and Muslims has prevented a more complex understanding.  There is an answer to both problems.

Muslims are as diverse as any other group of people.  Many not only reject Islamism (or Islam as a political ideology); quite a few are trying to combat it, often at their peril.  If we recognize that diversity, it is a lot easier to square the recognition of Islam's role in modern-day terrorism and tyranny with our liberal western values of not vilifying people because of their faith.

By now, many people understand that many Middle Eastern countries (e.g., Iraq) were post-World War II creations of European colonial powers that threw diverse populations together without regard to their distinctions--Shia and Sunni, Kurd and Arab, Kurd and Persian, etc.  There's more than--much more--and it can be the basis of a strategy for victory over Islamism.

Take Iran, for example.  To westerners, it might seem like a country divided at times across political lines, something that the government suppresses ruthlessly.  Few westerners know, however, that only about 60 percent of the country is made up of ethnic Persians.  The remaining 40 percent is divided among several national and often restive minorities.  Some, like the Azeri, have an independent nation as well (i.e., Azerbaijan).  Others (e.g., Kurds) have been fighting for one while being spread across multiple Muslim-majority giants.  The Baloch, once had an independent state of their own (Baluchistan), which has been occupied by Iran, Pakistan, and Afghanistan for decades.  These and other non-Persian groups aspire to be free of Iranian hegemony that suppresses their culture and forces an alien form of Islam on them.  Some have even taken action, such as the killing of 18 Iranian Guardsmen in 2007.

Pakistan is another polyglot state with restive minorities.  The largest part of Baluchistan is occupied by Pakistan; and although Baluchistan is rich in minerals and other resources, Pakistani plunder has left it the nation's poorest province.  Other national groups--Sindhi, Pashtun, and Gilgit Baltistanis--long for independence or at least autonomy and have their own independence movements.  Many of their operatives look to regional leaders like Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi for inspiration; and almost all look to Israel as a model and ally.

Finally. as ISIS has begun establishing itself in South Asia, there is division even among Islamists.  Many look at the Taliban as their indigenous movement and ISIS as a foreign entity that is attempting to take over their movement.

One of the biggest drags on western support (even clandestine) for these groups is fear by some in ruling circles that these efforts will "destabilize" the region and risk putting Pakistan's nuclear arsenal in ISIS or Taliban hands.  Both arguments are weak.  You can't destabilize something that is not stable to begin with.  Pakistan has faced Islamist attempts at a takeover at least since 2008; its intelligence service is already listed as a terror supporting organization by the United States and others.  We also have seen that ignoring nationalist movements like these only delays the struggle.  Do any of those fearful westerners see peaceful and democratic resolution of these conflicts in Pakistan's history.  And their nuclear arsenal is already at risk from both internal and external Islamist threats.  Hopefully, the United States and others have secured them in case the worst happens.  Finally, most people believe that a good part of those nukes are located in Baluchistan.  Wouldn't it be nice if they were controlled by friendly forces and not just those that tolerate us for convenience and personal gain?

Balochistan

Why do some groups’ struggles become fashionable and others do not? The Palestinians—a people with a history stretching back, oh gee, decades—are darlings of the left, Europeans, and their Muslim world sponsors who take draconian measures not to accept them within their borders.  They are the subject of almost continuous UN resolutions and occupy several international agencies, some exclusively, that are funded largely by the nations they demonize.  There are about 11.6 million Palestinians with a culture built almost entirely on enmity and hatred of Jews and the West.

The 10-15 million Baloch, on the other hand, have a history stretching back centuries and a rich culture with even earlier antecedents.  Unlike the Palestinians who have tried to claim a non-existent country, the Baloch actually had their own independent nation, Balochistan, that was swallowed up by British colonialists and their local allies.  They have not been favored with international aid and UN resolutions; and when a UN team simply tried to look into the matter, they were called off after Pakistani objections.  Europeans never refuse to buy Iranian or Pakistani goods that come from Balochistan--a nation with clearly defined historical borders that even its occupiers do not question.

Palestinians also are given a pass for terrorism that is an essential component of their "national" identity; and several of their major representatives make common cause with murderous Islamists.  The Baloch, on the other hand, practice a mild variant of Islam that is neither imperialistic nor murderous.  And even though terrorism is a marginal phenomenon among the Baloch, when a terrorist attack in Iranian-occipied Balochistan killed 18 members of Iran's Revolutionary Guards, those same UN Security Council sycophants went out of their way to express sympathy for the victims, saying hypocritically “that no cause can justify the use of terrorist violence"; hypocritically because they look the other way when Palestinian terrorists kill Israelis.


We are involved in new efforts to bring justice to the Baloch and help them regain their independence.  Their struggle is real, and it will not go away; and if the Kurds can now see progress on Iran's western flank, there is no reason why we cannot help the Baloch do the same on its eastern flank.