We see it right now in the government’s dramatic announcement on the one hand of an amnesty for Baloch leaders currently in exile, while almost simultaneously the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority has issued a “press advice” to seven major television channels, ominously reminiscent of actions under our worst dictatorships.
It warns them not to air the views of the very same leaders to whom the deal was offered. It is no surprise these men treated it with distrust.
It seems clear from the press advice the government does not mean what it had said earlier – about talking to the Baloch leaders.
The letter sent out to the media organisations comes in response to interviews aired with Hyrbyair Marri and Brahmdagh Bugti. It suggests views “detrimental” to the “existence of Pakistan” are not be broadcast.
There is a warning of further action against channels which violate the rules or campaign against the new Pemra restrictions.
We have heard before what Hyrbair and Brahmdagh have to say. They both say there is no going back on the idea of complete autonomy for their province; the younger Bugti has welcomed foreign intervention to help achieve this.
For many of us raised in the national – security paradigm which forms the basis of our state, their words are shocking; they are provocative. We are not used to hearing such things said out aloud. At best they are only whispered.
Instead, we prefer to pretend all is normal – that there are no divisions, no splits and no rage in our country. The use of the word “traitor” is commonplace when anyone points out these problems exist – and will not simply go away.
It is question time. We need to ask if silencing Baloch leaders or muffling their voices by removing them from the screens will really benefit us in any way at all or bring peace to our most troubled province.
The problem seems to have stemmed from our refusal to hear these voices in the past, or at least pay any heed to them. As a result, the tone of Baloch leaders has grown more strident; the pitch is higher.
Most frightening of all, such views are heard across Balochistan. Women have expressed them at various forums, in Balochistan and beyond. At speeches delivered at schools in Quetta and elsewhere in the province, schoolchildren make speeches that include words such as “freedom” and “liberty.”
The urgent need that faces us is to accept that such opinions exist. In a province torn apart by bloodshed and torture, there are many who call out for an escape from their present reality. It is not the Baloch nationalists alone who are demanding this.
The curious nexus in the province between nationalist leaders and tribal elders adds a further momentum to the process we are seeing. Rather than attempting to drown out what people like Hyrbair or Brahmdagh have to say, we should be listening more closely.
The neglect of Balochistan has led us to where we stand today. The matter has now seen international attention whcih has angered our government. But what it needs to do, instead of expressing rage over the resolution passed in the US or testimonies given there is to find solutions.
The process will not be an easy one. Too much time has been wasted; too many lives lost; too much hatred created. The trust of the Baloch has been lost. A deep schism exists between Balochistan and the centre.
The military in particular is deeply distrusted. Its presence in Balochistan and its alleged involvement in the “picking up” of people does nothing to help.
Rather than placing restrictions on conveying the thoughts of those who represent the Baloch, we should be encouraging this process. People must know what the pattern of thinking in the province is. Only when this is clear to the bulk of the population can we try and find answers.
The failures of the government to do so are undoubtedly linked to intervention by other forces.
But even so it has done too little. As a result the quagmire is deep and sticky. It will no longer be easy to bring men like the exiled nationalists or those who continue to fight within Balochistan to the discussion table.
The process can only be a gradual one, moving forward one small step at a time. The government must also decide precisely what it wishes to achieve. Confused and contrary policies, such as those demonstrated in the amnesty offer and followed by the Pemra advice, do not help at all.
It is disgraceful that under a democratic government an attempt is being made to quash out dissent. It cannot remain hidden forever. We need to hear loud and clear what the Baloch have to say.
The media has the power to play a role in this. It should be encouraged to do so, ideally with maturity and sensitivity. Imposing curbs will only worsen matters.
We wonder if the government actually has any kind of plan for Balochistan. What is the offer it is willing to make to the nationalists and other stakeholders in the province to whom it offered an amnesty?
This too needs to be made clear. The television channels and newspapers should be used to press forward with greater debate so that the issue can be swept out from under the carpets where it lies and brought out into the open, giving it the infusion of oxygen which can help generate fresh thoughts and new ideas.
Cutting off this oxygen by imposing a veil of silence will only deliver a death blow to the attempts to achieve peace and harmony in Balochistan and end the spree of killings which continues there decade after decade and year after year.
Kamila Hayat
0 comments:
Post a Comment