Q: Sardar Sahab, where do you think the current political situation of the country is taking us to, and what are the factors behind it?
A: If we look at the overall political situation of the country during the past 60 years, we are like standing on the brink of disaster; the national economy is in ruins, the judiciary is paralysed and the institutions are unstable. The law and order situation is highly poor. The political culture is totally destroyed. The reason behind it is that none of the democratically elected governments were allowed to rule independently, because every time a military general took over. Similarly, for the past eight years, Gen (retd) Pervez Musharraf has been in power. He has paralysed Constitution as well as all institutions including judiciary and parliament. All efforts have been made to crush national economy and political culture.
Today, the country faces the worst political and economic crisis of its history. The change in the corridors of power as a result of the February 18 general elections is welcoming, but the new political and democratic government has not been transferred complete powers, and as long as the powers remains with unconstitutional and undemocratic forces, it would be difficult to control the crises. If the democratic and political forces made any delay, then there wouldn't be any change. The political and democratic forces need to completely get rid of the anti-constitution and anti-democracy forces, otherwise they will be sent packing.
Q: Don't you think that as a result of assuming of power by democratic forces, the elements who have always been a hurdle in the way of the constitution and democracy have weakened?
A: If someone thinks that the hold of establishment in the country has weakened, then I believe that this impression is wrong. In fact the political and democratic struggle has made them tired. Now they want to shift the whole blame on to the democratic government. We believe that keeping in view the challenges faced by the democratic government, it is required that the role of the establishment and that of the military in politics should be done away with once and for all. Otherwise, there is no way out of the crises. This is completely true that the military and the establishment have the strong backing of the United States. (President) Pervez Musharraf’s sitting in the GHQ even today is not understandable.
Q: But don't you think that there is a change in the American attitude as well. Especially on the issue of an independent judiciary there is a change in the American point of view. What reasons do you see behind this?
A: America has been forced to change its attitude. It has changed its attitude after witnessing the public sentiments, but all this is not from the heart; the establishment and the military are being completely patronized. After eight years of dictatorship, Benazir's sacrifices for democracy bore fruits and her party won the elections – people once again pinned their hopes on the new set up – but it is unfortunate that neither those in power nor the US is able to understand the voice of the people. If they do, change is possible – as the people have given their verdict against Musharraf through the present elections.
Q: Don't you think that the military take over indicates weaknesses on the part of the politicians and don't you think that President Musharraf's stay in power for eight years provides a proof of the ineffectiveness of the political forces in the country?
A: I totally agree with you that this has been happening because of weaker role of political forces – not just the people but also the political parties distributed sweets – but you cannot put the entire blame on the politicians: the judiciary, too, is equally responsible. Political forces supported the president in the form of LFO, while the judiciary provided a ground for his stay in power and termed his unconstitutional rule, constitutional. Political parties did not honour the public mandate. But today the situation has changed. The judiciary and the political parties have realized their mistake and now they want to make amends.
Q: Political parties are supposed to lead the movements, but today it's the lawyers who are leading the movements. Do you think that the political parties have grown weak?
A: No! that is not the case, rather the lawyers have come out in the field as a ray of hope and they are steadfast in their struggle. Political forces have always been weakened after being offered perks and power; the lawyers, too, have been offered perks on various occasions, but they haven't compromised on principles and have rejected all offers. They are fighting for the independence of judiciary.
Q: In spite of the lawyers’ organized struggle for the restoration of the judges and independence of judiciary, the judges are not being restored. Where do you think the hurdle lies, and why is it that the new democratic government is not ensuring independence of judiciary?
A: The forces acting as a hurdle in the way of independence of judiciary are the same that consider themselves the biggest well-wisher of the country. We were never considered among the well-wishers of the country, rather we were always called traitors. Our crime is that we want to save the country. We want rule of the constitution and independence of judiciary. We want that there is supremacy of the parliament so that no general can ever dare to occupy power. But the ‘well-wishers’ of Pakistan do not want to see an independent judiciary in the country.
Q: Do you think that independence of judiciary will not result in any revolution and that the doctrine of necessity has been buried?
A: When the formation of Pakistan itself was a result of doctrine of necessity, then there is no question of it being buried at any moment. Judiciary comes through doctrine of necessity; the generals became rulers under the doctrine of necessity. The judiciary was never left independent – decisions were made under the doctrine of necessity. Our foreign and domestic policies were formulated at the cost of dollars. Our foreign policies were made according to the extent of foreign aid. We believe that even if today the judiciary is made independent, some politician will be brought to book, but not any of the generals. So we do not consider such judiciary independent. We will consider judiciary independent when a general is brought to the court – only then there would be no doctrine of necessity nor will there be a need of it. It is only then that we will agree that judiciary is truly independent and that the doctrine of necessity is buried once and for all.
Q: Looking at the developments at the international level, how do you see the future of Pakistan?
A: Pakistan’s future is not very encouraging. A country whose policies are made at the cost of dollars, what future can it have. Our rulers have made beggars out of us. Our foreign policy is made on the directives of others. As it is said that beggars can’t be choosers, they are giving us the aid because they want us to formulate a foreign policy that looks after their interest. Military has always been used, be it case of defeating Soviet Union or any other purpose, their services are hired.
Q: How can you get out of this situation?
A: Briefly, it’s too late as you are caught in a quagmire; if you try to get out, you will sink further. There are lesser chances of you getting away.
Q: What is the real problem of Balochistan that has not been understood?
A: I don’t say that it hasn’t been understood, rather the rulers never tried to understand it. The problem of Balochistan isn’t that complex, if we the illiterate people can understand it, then why not those who were taught at Cambridge and Oxford. The issue is simple – the Baloch people should be recognised as the owners of the resources and the shores of Balochistan; we should be given the right to live thee way we want to so we can decide about the better future of our children.
If right to self-determination is a sin, then Pakistani rulers, the establishment and the Pakistani bureaucracy are the biggest criminals who have raised their voice for the Kashmiris’ right to self-determination. Why are they refusing Balochistan the same right that has never been part of united India. If we look historically, then the accession of Balochistan was unnatural and forced. Can any one prove that any Baloch leader was part of the resolution of 1940 and has his signatures on it. So as the right to self-determination is legitimate for Kashmiris, it is also legitimate for the people of Balochistan. Provincial autonomy or concurrent list is not the solution to the Balochistan problem.
Q: The nationalist parties have themselves been in power in the province, but at that time they never talked about deprivation. Don’t you think that these nationalist parties have themselves weakened their case?
A: No, I don’t agree with you. In spite of the smart play of the Pakistani rulers, establishment, intelligence agencies and that of the bureaucracy, the nationalists have been defending their stance. That is the reason that their movement has reached this level. The nationalists have kept the movement alive in spite of all sorts of conspiracies to divide them. They were sent to jails and tortured, but the nationalists didn’t lose hope. Now that when I returned after my release, the way the people welcomed me is a symbol of nationalist politics.
Q: Where do you think lies the solution to the Balochistan problem: in the resistance movement or in the parliamentary and political struggle. Don’t you see a contradiction in two?
A: If any one thinks that the problem of Balochistan can be solved through the resistance movement, then it is impossible. Both are important; no resistance movement can be successful without political struggle. And in the present times, there wasn’t a need for adopting the path of a resistance movement. But the attitude of the Pakistani rulers forced the people to adopt the way of resistance for their rights in protest. But the separation of political and democratic struggle and the resistance movement, too, is not in favour of the Baloch nation. Both are playing a part at their respective level. There are some elements that are government created and they have the complete patronage of the government. They are advancing the government interests by creating contradictions between the two. We are keeping an eye on such people who are working for the government and hope that those involved in the resistance movement are also keeping an eye on them.
Q: Are you trying to say that among those involved in the resistance are people who are with the government?
A: These people are with no one, they are in the middle. They raise the slogan of resistance, but eat Sajji at the Jinnah Road, Quetta. If there is a political activity, they create chaos in it. They have nothing to do with resistance.
Q: After the military operation in Balochistan and killing of Nawab Akbar Bugti, the BNP resigned from the assemblies, but it didn’t bid farewell to parliamentary politics completely, and because of this, its graph is lowering among the Baloch circles. What do you think is the reason behind this contradiction in BNP’s stance?
A: Let me clarify the issue of resignations from the assemblies. When in August 26, 2006, Nawab Akbar Bugti died along with his followers, then perhaps after two-three days, a meeting of the Balochistan Assembly was held. At that time, when it was asked to offer prayer for the departed souls, the then speaker, Jamal Shah Kakar, didn’t come to his chair and the deputy speaker at that time, Muhammad Aslam Bhootani, dismissed the meeting. We resigned at this in protest because there is no use sitting in those assemblies where we are not allowed to pray for our leaders. But an impression that was taken was that we have bid farewell to parliamentary politics forever. But to bid farewell to parliamentary politics doesn’t rest with me alone, the decision of the central executive committee of the party would be acceptable to everyone. The way body of Nawab Akbar Bugti was buried, wasn’t done by an individual or an institution, the people behind it are those who are acting as the defenders of the country and are fanning hatred, after occupying power.
Q: The trend towards resistance and leaving parliamentary politics is increasing in Balochistan. How do you look at it and what could be the reasons behind it?
A: If the Baloch youth are fed up with parliamentary politics, then the reason behind this is the wrong policies of the rulers pertaining to the Baloch people in the past 60 years. Our people were killed, military operations were carried out. Though those talking about independent Balochistan or raising slogan of resistance sat in the assemblies like Balach Marri and Nawab Akbar Bugti, the ruler’s attitude made them realise that they were treated like slaves.
Q: Is their any possibility that the slogans of resistance would begin to reduce in loudness?
A: This depends on the government and those in power, because if the policies are not changed then things won’t change.
Q: Do you think that it is foolishness on the part of the rulers that they are pushing Balochistan in this direction where there is nothing but remorse or is it being done under a well worked out plan?
A: When the power exceeds beyond limit, then brain stops functioning. So we believe that at this moment, ruler’s brain isn’t functioning.
Q: How do you look at the target killing of settlers in Balochistan, especially in Quetta?
A: We are political and democratic people and killing of innocent people is something that we condemn irrespective on which part of globe it takes place. Some hidden forces are fanning hatred on the basis of language and trying to damage the Baloch national movement.
Q: What do you like to say about people who have been part of the previous government and are sitting in the assemblies today as well and are opposing military operation?
A: They can only be called as hypocrites.
