Dispelling The Disinformation On Kalat’s Accession To Pakistan – OpEd
Kalat, a district nestled within the rugged mountains of Balochistan province in Pakistan, holds historical significance for many reasons. It was a princely state ruled by the Khanates and surrounded by smaller princely states like Kharan, Makran, and Lasbela during the pre-partition British era. Amidst the chaos of British India’s partition, its fate hung by a thread.
The Khan of Kalat, Mir Ahmed Yar Khan, was a staunch advocate of an independent Muslim state, yet he delayed the decision of accession. This delay has provided adversaries of Pakistan with a tool to fuel anti-Pakistan sentiments among disgruntled elements of Baloch society to this day. These anti-state sentiments often lead to terrorism, causing instability in the region and hindering development projects and foreign investments. The dilemma of Kalat’s accession is entangled in a web of misconceptions and disinformation, which has become an Achilles’ heel for Pakistan’s national security and foreign diplomacy.
The partition of British India in 1947 created India and Pakistan but also led to complex political negotiations, particularly concerning the princely states. Balochistan held significant importance due to its political landscape at the time. Composed of various entities, including British-administered Balochistan and princely states, its integration into Pakistan involved diplomatic efforts and tensions. The decisions made by leaders like Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah and the eventual accession of Kalat remain some of the most influential historical events, shaped by controversies and disinformation.
At the time of partition, Balochistan was not a homogenous entity. It consisted of British Balochistan, the princely states of Kalat, Kharan, Makran, and Lasbela, and the Omani-controlled region of Gwadar. These regions had different political systems: British Balochistan was directly administered by the British, while the princely states were semi-autonomous under nominal British suzerainty. Gwadar, a coastal region owned by Oman, was later acquired by Pakistan in 1958. The princely states were ruled by local chiefs and the Khanate, who had been under British protection since the late 19th century, allowing Britain control over foreign affairs and defense in exchange for protection and privileges.
According to the 3rd June Plan presented by Lord Mountbatten, princely states had the option of acceding to either India or Pakistan. While British Balochistan became part of Pakistan following a referendum, the princely states had to make independent decisions. Kalat, the largest and most influential among them, hesitated to join either nation, preferring independence. This indecision created a political vacuum, particularly concerning the smaller princely states.
Lasbela, Kharan, and Makran decided to accede to Pakistan relatively quickly. Their rulers, known as Sardars, prioritized political autonomy and stability amidst regional power shifts. Aligning with Pakistan offered them protection and economic support, which was crucial in the post-partition turmoil.
Jinnah recognized Kalat’s strategic importance and engaged in multiple rounds of negotiations with the Khan of Kalat between August 14, 1947, and March 11, 1948, offering assurances of autonomy within Pakistan’s framework. His diplomatic approach aligned with his broader vision of Pakistan as a federal state allowing regional autonomy.
A turning point came when V.P. Menon, the Secretary of the Ministry of States in India, announced on All India Radio that the Khan of Kalat had initially requested to join India. Although later denied by Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, this claim pressured Kalat’s decision-making process. Facing internal and external pressures, the Khan of Kalat ultimately agreed to join Pakistan in March 1948, recognizing the greater political and military stability Pakistan offered, especially as tensions with India escalated.
Kalat’s accession to Pakistan on 27 March 1948 was a pivotal moment but was surrounded by misinformation and disinformation campaigns, particularly from India. One key aspect of India’s disinformation campaign was misrepresenting the Khan of Kalat’s position and intentions. Initially, the Khan expressed a desire for independence, fearing a loss of autonomy. However, India portrayed his hesitation as a preference for joining India. This narrative was strategically promoted through official statements and media coverage, falsely suggesting that the Khan had sought India’s support. These misrepresentations created the impression that Kalat’s accession to Pakistan was forced rather than a political negotiation. Such distortions served to delegitimize the Khan’s decision and fuel unrest in Balochistan.
The controversies sown by India regarding Kalat’s accession continue to drive conflict in Balochistan. Internationally designated terrorist groups like the Baloch Liberation Army (BLA) and political factions like the Baloch National Movement (BNM) frame Kalat’s accession as an act of oppression and occupation by Pakistan. These groups propagate false narratives globally, engaging the local diaspora and rewriting history to fit their agenda. Meanwhile, the BLA carries out terrorist activities in Balochistan, inciting youth to take up arms against the state.
The historical narrative of Kalat’s accession remains crucial in understanding the ongoing conflict in Balochistan. Disinformation, fueled by external adversaries, continues to influence public perception and ignite separatist sentiments. A factual understanding of the past is essential in countering these narratives and fostering stability in the region. Pakistan’s efforts to integrate Balochistan and ensure its development must be rooted in historical accuracy, strategic diplomacy, and socio-economic progress to secure a peaceful future for the province.
