QUETTA, May 19: President Pervez Musharraf’s offer of conditional amnesty in Balochistan has been rejected by prominent politicians, tribal leaders and local observers, some of whom have described it as an insult to the Baloch people and irrelevant in the current situation.

Most of them have said that the Baloch people and tribesmen had not revolted against the authorities, but were forced to flee to the mountains after talks between tribal leaders and a parliamentary committee were disrupted by a military operation.

During his recent visit to Sui, Gen Musharraf had reiterated his conditional amnesty offer, and at the same time warned people to either lay down their arms or face annihilation.

According to local people, Balochistan’s tribal past goes back to pre-historic times. Various Baloch tribes have been living in the area for at least 2,000 years. Weapons are always considered part of personal belongings and a means of personal security.

No government in the past made any serious attempt to de-weaponise the province. And taking to the hills has been the traditional form of protest against a government.

The current situation, they say, arose when the government launched a military operation, and it took a decisive turn when prominent Baloch leader Nawab Akbar Bugti was gunned down.

One tribal leader says there is widespread bitterness among the people of Balochistan against the military operation, dislocation of civilians and disruption of civic life and rendering of hundreds of thousands of people homeless. The internally-displaced people are spread all over, in Balochistan, Sindh and Punjab.

Former prime minister Mir Zafarullah Khan Jamali supported the concept of ‘general amnesty’, saying that the late Gen Ziaul Haq had announced a similar amnesty which created an atmosphere conducive to resolving outstanding issues.

“As prime minister, I had suggested to the president in the first meeting of the National Security Council to announce a general amnesty in Balochistan to help resolve all issues through negotiations,” Mir Jamali told Dawn.

He said there should be “no doubt that people in Balochistan are Muslims and Pakistanis and if the government had shown open-heartedness by announcing a general amnesty, positive results would have been achieved”.

President Musharraf’s offer, he said, would restore people’s confidence and create a favourable atmosphere for dialogue.

Nawabzada Baramdagh Bugti, a leading Baloch militant, however, rejected the offer and said that it would not help end the Baloch resistance that was bound to spread all over the province.

“The Baloch resistance is not confined to just two tehsils (in Balochistan). Militants are forcefully resisting government forces in vast areas of Balochistan,” he told newsmen from an undisclosed location on satellite phone. He claimed that the rulers were trying to find a way to pull their forces out of the area because of the severe resistance being offered by Baloch insurgents.

Mir Hasil Khan Bizenjo, secretary-general of the National Party, said that the Baloch people were offended even at the suggestion of “surrendering arms” and the tone in which the president had made the offer was quite insulting. He said the Baloch people were struggling for their rights and they were not foreign nationals whom the president was ordering to surrender while hurling the threat of dire consequences.

“Such threats are hurled only when someone is fighting a foreign enemy or those who are against the state. This is not the case in Balochistan. People are struggling for their legitimate rights,” Hasil Khan said.

“After the killing of Nawab Bugti, General Musharraf should have apologised to the nation, and especially to the Baloch people.”

Mr Bizenjo said that the rulers had forced the Baloch people to take up arms and seek refuge in mountains by launching a military operation in order to deny them their rights for which they had been struggling for the past 58 years. He said that the entire nation was against the wrong policies of the present military leaders and was supporting the people of Balochistan.

Habib Jalib, secretary-general of the Balochistan National Party (BNP-Mengal), also rejected idea of a conditional amnesty and said that generals who were conducting the military operation should themselves retreat, instead of asking the Baloch people to surrender. He said that times had changed and the military dictator should surrender to democratic forces and to the people’s will.

“It is the government which imposed the operation on the people of Balochistan who were only demanding their constitutional and legal rights,” Arbab Abdul Zahir Kasi, senior vice-president of the Awami National Party, said.

Accusing the government and the armed forces of sabotaging peace talks, he said that Baloch leaders, especially Nawab Bugti, had never refused to hold talks. The ANP leader said that Balochistan was a tribal society where nobody liked to hear the word “surrender”, adding that General Musharraf’s conditional offer, accompanied by threats, would never work.

“If they are really sincere about resolving the Balochistan issue, they should hold meaningful negotiations with Baloch and Pakhtun leaders and settle all issues,” said Arbab Zahir. Otherwise, he added, the situation would worsen.

PPP’s Balochistan general-secretary Bismillah Khan Kakar said that no issue could be resolved by use of force or threats, adding that Gen Musharraf was using the “military’s language” while offering amnesty to militants. This was bound to be counter-productive.

“The general’s conditional amnesty offer is provocative and it is not likely to generate any positive response,” Mr Khan said, adding that the offer was against the spirit of amnesty usually offered for settling political conflicts.

Bismillah Khan said that the amnesty offer accompanied by threats would further aggravate the situation. He advised the government to change its dictatorial attitude if it wanted to resolve issues currently being confronted by the country, especially Balochistan.

Mr Kachkol Ali, Leader of Opposition in the Balochistan Assembly, also expressed dismay over the amnesty offer. He said it seemed that the rulers did not give any importance to the law or the Constitution and they had no respect for elected institutions which had been demanding for a long time to resolve Balochistan issues through negotiations.

“They are taking whimsical decisions without any respect for people’s will,” said Kachkol Ali. He blamed the government’s negative attitude for pushing the Baloch youths to the path that they had taken. “Now, the situation is beyond amnesty and such offers would not bring about any change.” The need of the hour is a new constitution which should address the demands and concerns of all nationalities and federating units, Mr Kachkol Ali said.