Ali Hamza
States are a conglomeration of people of all sorts. Some are in cahoots with the state for whatever its policy might be, while others are dissidents, not entirely accepting all these policies. The modern democratic system has a proclivity for political dissent and agitation, as these are concomitant with democracy. States are, thus, considered to be mothers to their citizens, accommodating all of them despite their diversity. For Pakistan as a state, several of its children have been unruly. The roots of this do not lie in their stubbornness, but in the very attitude of the state itself. The festering wound of Balochistan is something that Pakistan has left untreated over decades, even aggravated through its constant neglect. This issue is widely debated upon and solutions of all sorts are advised, but the upheavals in Balochistan have, nevertheless, remained ceaseless. Baluchistan has lost its hundreds of sons fighting the state and the insurgency there still haunts the rulers in Islamabad.
Violence is something abhorrent for all those who believe in humanity and its sanctity. Wielding arms for any cause might be a consequence of continuous deprivation of fundamental rights, as has been the case in Baluchistan, but this never means that a sane mind should condone it as a solution. Killing innocent people who have no say in the distribution of resources and retaliating by violence in the face of violence is the principle of jungle. Civilized human societies do not opt for such uncivilized ways. Anyone who is deprived of his due rights can pursue a more civilized path for agitation, instead of killing those who are not directly responsible for their deprivation. But this never exonerates those who are responsible for the deprivation. No human being has a proclivity to relentlessly murder others, unless they are pushed to that point where the doors of violence thrust open. No young man ascends to mountain tops with weapons unless something forces him to do so. There are underlying reasons for such acts. People turn into vigilantes when law fails them.
Shah Dad Baloch was a fertile mind, hailing from Balochistan. A graduate of Quaid-i -Azam University Islamabad, he was a civilised human being as we have come to know from his colleagues and teachers. An older video depicts his suave attitude, where he was raising the question of deprivation in Balochistan in a well-mannered way. Moreover, he was never known as a hyper-nationalist. What was it that changed him so abruptly? Why did he become a militant (as is claimed by some quarters)? Shah Dad was a CSS aspirant who wished to serve the state. What turned him into an anti-state element? These questions will never be answered, but we all know the tacit underpinnings of security operations.
For a person who is still not the victim of mindless indoctrination, Shah Dad was nothing but an unruly child of the state. His unruliness emanated from his acknowledgement of the misery of his people. He became unruly when he was harassed for being what he was.
The state has, however, employed an iron fist to discipline its children and Shah dad is not the only victim this hard attitude. Baloch people have endured treatment this for decades. Those responsible for all this mess need to understand the fact that gunning down these individuals is not the plausible solution. Their grievances need to be addressed. The ethnic profiling they are subject to needs to cease. Otherwise more Shah Dads might be waiting to give up their lives.
