‘There is life after divorce’
THIS refers to the column by Irfan Husain (Aug 20) and the rejoinder by Jalaluddin S. Hussain of Canada (Aug 28).
The columnist has argued that when Britain is willing to consider the possible separation of Scotland, and Canada of Quebec, through referendums, why shouldn’t Pakistan give the same option to the province of Balochistan?
They are reminded of how Britain had resorted to military force followed by local and American diplomacy to resolve the Northern Ireland issue.
Britain has also been forcibly keeping the Falkland Islands, located thousands of miles away under its rule, having even gone to war with Argentina over the issue even though the latter should have a greater claim on the territory due to its geographical and historical links.
Likewise Russia, China, India, Thailand, Philippines, Turkey, Iran and some other countries also have one or more insurgencies going on but nobody, including the two gentlemen mentioned above, have suggested such course of action.
Even the United States has been routinely using force to thwart its own mutinous militants, having fissiparous inclinations such as the white supremacist Michigan Militia that had carried out the Oklahoma City bombing of a federal building in 1996.
Some 120 people, including women and children, had been killed in what was the biggest act of terrorism in the US till that time.
We can’t talk so casually about letting nations break. In case of Pakistan, if Balochistan is allowed to go its way, then there will be calls for Sindhu Desh, Mohajiristan, Pakhtunistan and so on. What kind of a solution is this?
I certainly agree that peaceful means should be adopted to resolve the long-festering Baloch problem, but giving in to separatists isn’t a good way of doing that.
The 180-million Pakistanis should be allowed to put their heads together and find a solution after placing all facts before them, including the foreign-interference involved, instead of hoodwinking them through parliamentary committees and other jugglery where political expediency of a few parties decides what gets done or what should be shoved under the carpet.