http://www.balochhal.com/2016/05/11/dangerous-interlocutors/

By Malik Siraj Akbar Published on May 11, 2016

The Balochs are capable of speaking on their behalf.  They don't need interlocutors. 

The Balochs are capable of speaking on their behalf.  They don’t need interlocutors. 

The Unrepresented Nations and People’s Organization (UNPO) organized an excellent conference on Balochistan on Tuesday in Washington D.C. I describe it as a successful conference because the organizers managed to bring some notable speakers, including Senator Paul Strauss of the District of Columbia and representatives from globally respectable organizations such as the Amnesty International and the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ).  The conference discussed various aspects of the conflict in Balochistan but, unfortunately, it turned ugly at the end when panelist Tarek Fatah used extremely filthy language against a Pakistani reporter whom he accused of being “an ISI agent” even before the poor reporter from the ARY News could ask his question.  When a Baloch father present at the conference felt uncomfortable with the use of vulgar language in front of two of his daughters and insisted that this was not the Baloch way of conducting dialogue even with one’s worst enemies, an unapologetic Fatah lambasted him too. 

While the UNPO had provided the Baloch a unique opportunity to voice their grievances, it is entirely upon the Baloch people to take advantage of these opportunities to put their case forward.  Washington is undeniably the most important world capital for the Baloch if they want to get international support for their movement.  Emotional and abusive supporters of the Baloch cause, such as Mr. Fatah, certainly look entertaining on an Arnab Goswami talk-show but they will have a damaging effect on the Baloch movement. 

In order to successfully lobby in Washington D.C for their rights, Baloch activists and supporters must realize that insulting journalists, labeling them as ‘agents’ and confronting them with abusive language is a brazen assault on the freedom of the press and it will tarnish their image at a time when the Baloch need more friends in Washington and elsewhere in the world.  Such aggressive behavior is undemocratic, intolerant and, above all, utterly unacceptable in the United States and western democracies. 

The Baloch must understand (and I am sure many do) that difference of opinion is an integral part of human nature and anyone who disagrees with us does not become an “ISI agent”.  People don’t have to agree with us all the time nor are they under any obligation to subscribe to our point of view.  Even if their point of view is completely different from ours, they deserve the same amount of respect that we seek for ourselves. 

Furthermore, in Pakistan it might be deemed embarrassing or offensive to be called a foreign agent but in the United States it is totally fine, legal and considered lucrative to work as a lobbyist or an agent for a foreign government after registering under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA).  Top American universities like Harvard offer courses on lobbying. 

So, Baloch activists must understand the American political culture if they someday encounter a real “Pakistani agent” at a conference.  They might ask the Baloch tough and knotty questions.  On their part, the Baloch activists must be absolutely prepared to answer these questions if they intend to make Washington their new lobbying ground.  Washington is a city of spies, lobbyists and agents.  Everybody is out there to quash the other.  Only the fittest will survive; the rest will vanish. 

Waheed Baloch, a former Speaker of the Balochistan Assembly, rightly reminded Mr. Fatah that the Baloch can defend their position with historical facts and figures and logical arguments without becoming emotional, reactionary or resorting to abusive language. 

Mr. Fatah is blessed with a brilliant brain which has, unfortunately, been hijacked by a mean and abusive tongue. 

Ironically, he had turned mad at the ARY reporter because he had asked me during the Q & A session on a panel that I served on what I had to say in response to accusations that I was a RAW agent. ( RAW is the Indian intelligence agency, the Research and Analysis Wing). [ By the way, the full text of my speech at UNPO conference is available here].  I addressed the question with a sense of humor and told him sarcastically that now that I have a Master’s degree in Public Administration (MPA) from Harvard University, RAW and ISI both should consider hiring me for ‘public service’ and I was officially qualified to work for them.  The same reporter had asked Waheed Baloch if it was true that the Pakistani government had registered corruption charges against him.  Both of us answered the reporter to the best of our ability. 

This is ridiculous that Mr. Fatah criticized the reporter for calling me a “RAW agent” and then went on to call him an “ISI agent”.  So, what is the difference?  These are two sides of the same absurd approach.  This indicates how deeply the British corrupted the minds of the South Asians under their divide and rule policy.  Six decades after their departure, people still keep calling anyone they dislike or disagree with as a foreign agent.  This is deplorable.  If a television channel reporter and an author of two award-winning books subscribe to these conspiracy theories then let’s not blame the ordinary man in a teashop somewhere in India and Pakistan. 

Mr. Fatah is wrong in accusing several former U.S. ambassadors, academics and South Asia experts of being “ISI agents” only because in July 2013 they wrote a letter in support of a Pakistani expert working at an American think-tank saying that he was not an ISI agent as alleged by another Pakistani analyst.  This sounds crazy.  But this is actually (rather unfortunately) what many desi scholars squander their time in doing.  If that logic is accepted then should we call that sixteen Pakistan scholars as “RAW agents” who wrote a similar letter in January 2012 to the then U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to express concern over the “safety and well-being” of former Pakistani ambassador to the United States Husain Haqqani?  Scholars like Stephan P. Cohen of the Brookings Institution, signed both the letters.  Should they, under Mr. Fatah’s interpretation, be called “double agents”?  Hell no. 

In a nutshell, Mr. Fatah’s tactics might work in Pakistan but they will not be very useful in America.  The UNPO will be doing the Baloch a great disservice by inviting him to its future events on Balochistan.  After Tuesday’s event, Mr. Fatah went on Twitter accusing “a lot of Balochs in DC” of “betraying Balochistan and “selling out”.  This is outrageous.  Baloch leaders and activists are already divided and disunited.  The last thing they need is another messenger of division, confusion and misinformation.  Not only are the Balochs capable of speaking on their behalf and, with a little effort, I am sure they can also talk among themselves.  The Baloch must not require an interlocutors to further misrepresent and divide them.  The Baloch deserve better. 

Mere emotions and rhetoric will not take the Baloch wherever they see their destination.  In this journey, the Baloch will need allies and supporters from all over the world.  They have to be open to divergent opinions, different perspectives and sometimes sit down and talk to people they abhor the most.  It is easy and fun talking to people who think like us and agree with our point of view.  The real challenge is to talk to people who don’t agree with us