So how comes, the Baloch insurgents' armed challenge to the state is a political issue while the militants' terrorism is not? If the militants' brutal campaign to impose their brand of rabid religiosity on the country is a heinous crime, isn't the Baloch insurgents' war for the very dismemberment of the country no lesser vile? Aren't both trying to get with the gun what they want? And if the militants are spurning bloodily peaceful and constitutional ways in their pursuit, aren't the Baloch insurgents doing the same?
So how does the commentariat square up this inherent contradiction in its two stances? Why it looks so apologetically at the bloodshed by the Baloch insurgents and stands in utter contempt of bloodletting by the militants? Aren't both sailing on the same boat, playing holi with the innocent blood? Aren't both vile murderers and slayers of the same ilk, and of the worst kind? Aren't Baloch insurgents as culpable of unpardonable criminality as unforgivably are the bloodthirsty militants? Then, why indeed is there so much of deception and deceit to the commentariat's discourse when it comes to the Balochistan problem?
Yes. Forced disappearances are unquestionably horrific; dumped mutilated bodies are shatteringly cruel. And this callous savagery must come to an end at once; and whoever be the perpetrator must be brought to justice unexceptionably. But is the killing or maiming of the unsuspecting Baloch children, women and men in the deadly blasts of improvised explosive devices planted by the insurgents not equally barbaric? Scores of the innocent Balochs have lost their precious lives and limbs in such deadly blasts over the time. Yet, no tears are shed over their enormous grief. Not even by civil society groups and human rights campaigners. Why? Are those victims of this savagery no Balochs? Are they no human beings? Why this deafening silence across the spectrum, indeed?
And why is there absolute hush over the slaughter of hundreds of Punjabi settlers by the Baloch gunmen? Some 1,200 of them have been mowed down by one account with no sin at all on their neck. Yet none speaks of their catastrophe even remotely. Not even the human rights campaigners who tire not in flaunting their touted-deep concern over the human tragedies in Balochistan. Why? Are those Punjabis, who indeed are no settlers but very much sons of the soil in every true sense for having lived generation after generation in Balochistan, no human beings? Or have they lost every human right merely for their ancestors being settlers? Or what?
Horribly, instead of condemning or deploring the murder of the Punjabis, the human rights workers are found variously justifying their carnage. Their plea: these killings by Baloch gunmen are in revenge for the Balochs' disappearances, dumped bodies and missing persons at the hands of the security forces. This logic is really bewildering. The Punjabis murdered, maimed or driven out from their hearths and homes by the Baloch gunmen are no decision- or policy-makers by any definition. They are just ordinary folks, serving the Balochs as barbers, carpenters, washmen, and so on, while a lot teaching their children in schools. So what cruel kind of justification are the human rights activists and the apologists of their type proffering for the culpable criminality of Baloch gunmen?
And what about the self-styled champions of the Pakhtuns of Balochistan. Pakhtuns in droves have been driven out from their hearths and homes and their businesses over these times by the insurgents in the Baloch-dominated areas of the province and yet they are still keeping their silence fast unbroken over their own fraternity's doleful predicament. Not when a whimper of whine or protest they whisper out over the sad plight of their Pakhtun cousins. What kind of a championship of their community is it then, which they keep bragging of no end and press into service as well to muster vote in the electoral contests? Who do they really represent? Their community or their own personal interests?
Anyway, there is lot of skullduggery to the current Balochistan discourse among the various segments of the polity. The real issue is being kept under the wrap of this deceitful talk. The insurgency in Balochistan has arguably not as much to do with the Baloch genuine grouse as with the lust for power and money of its chieftaincies. The insurgency is being led, incited and fueled by the princely scions of the sardars, an overbearing class of compulsive oppressors, suppressors and exploiters of the enslaves mass of Baloch commoners. For the most part, the establishments at the centre have mollycoddled and patronised this parasitic class at the expense of the wretched Baloch commoners. The civil society now has teamed up in furthering the cause of the sardari princes, not the commoners. It is as simple as that.