Balochistan People’s Party

By W. Garboni
01-03-2007

BBC Persian Service came under attack once again for echoing the Iranian regime’s propaganda against Baloch Nation. In the latest steps taken to offend Baloch political and cultural activists the BBC Persian Service published some slandering venom that was spat out by the Iranian regime against the Baloch.

The attack that took place on the regimes forces in Bahu Kalat southern Balochistan on 28 February 2007 in which two of Persian soldiers were killed, one injured and another four abducted by the attackers; disgusted the Persians working for the Persian Service and they went even further than the regime by labelling the attackers ‘bandits’ -see the link wording where the arrow pointing.

The regime machinery in their new findings about the attackers issued a further statement on 1st March 2007 which was copied by the Persian Service and stated “officer Mohammad Gaffari told the Jomhuri Eslami News Agency that ‘a group called Wahed Bakhsh Drakhshaan’ has carried out the crime and they are demanding the reopening of a drug route through which they supplied drugs to Homozagan, Fars and Bushar provinces’”.
A bizarre statement by the regime and a bizarre coverage by the Persian Service again! Would a drug dealer demands from a state to reopen a drug passage because they want to transport drug?

The same Persian Service did not note the statement issued by ‘Iranian People’s Resistance Movement’ led by Mr. Abdol Malek Regi in which they had accepted the responsibility of the attack and demanded the release of all detained Baloch and other political prisoners in return for the release of the hostages.

For strange reasons the Service is not paying attention to or contacting the Baloch leaders handy to find the true picture of the incidents taking place in Balochistan. Instead they continue to echo the establishment’s point of view to their readers and listeners which is creating a false impression of Baloch and their activities against the current Iranian regime.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By S. D. Baloch
07-03-2007

Baloch are settled in the land and have formed themselves into separate territory based on political communities. Baloch face the problem of coexisting with neighboring groups whom Baloch could not ignored, because they were next door, as well as groups that are further away.

Natural boundary has divided Baloch from Persian, and that natural boundary has protected them before the industrial revolution. Time to time group contact occurred it involved dispute, threat, invasion, and conquest. The state of Iran was not formed in heaven it is a process of conquers and imposed will of conqueror on conquered. In an acceptable state at least five basic social values are expected of the state to uphold; security, freedom, order, justice and welfare. These fundamental values are important to well-being and so they must be protected.

There are other organization in Iranian Balochistan apart from those of the state; Baloch are a cultural group, religious, linguistic, clan, group that live within a distinct geographic area called Balochistan (the land of Baloch). In the modern era the state has been involved as the leading institution to insure these basic values are maintained. State of Iran has failed to protect non Persian citizen from internal threat. Their way of life and religion is under threat from the state, their property is not safe. Security should be of fundamental interest of the state, but Baloch are not included in the Iranian provided security. Iranian regime is aggressive and hostile to its neighbors. The Iranian structure poses a threat to the region.

Other state in the world uphold freedom of their citizen seriously. State of Iran puts burdens on Baloch such as military service, taxation and other obligation, what Baloch gain from state is humiliation, strict religion practice, no cultural right, no equal right, there is no freedom to cultivate and preserve their language, because Baloch are not Shiite they can not be trusted by the state to hold executive post.

Most Persians may feel they are not free individually, but under these circumstances Baloch will never feel free individually, and collectively, because they were threatened under monarchy regime, today Persian exile opposition groups have no such agenda to address Baloch grievances in future.
The state of Iran never felt obliged to uphold equal rights to each cultural group, establishing and maintaining coexistence and interact on basis of certainty and predictability. State are expected to uphold order and justice, but justice in Iran is not a universal law, it is based on local sharya law and interpreted differently from one Mullah to another.

System of government in Iran is the revolutionary that includes one segment and rejects another segment, and pinpoint one segment in order to demonize that segment of the society. Baloch are accused anti- revolutionary, British and American collaborators, therefore they are excluded from Persian national wealth.
Baloch believe that state of Iran failed to provide minimal standards for Baloch. The faith of millions men and woman, and children in Iran put into question the legitimacy of state of Iran. Iran is a territorial state it is not one nation one state as Persian assume. Iran failed to meet minimal standards, consequence of that failure should raise question, because these failure are based on discrimination against Baloch and other non Persian.

The state system is an institution that is not ordained by God or determined by nature, it is consequence of empire conquest, or colonial territory it is social organization, some state constituted from many cultural groups, when majority group is threat to minority international community have responsibility, not to condemn victim, but to determine who is aggressor.
Some states majority group occupy United Nation seat and lobby the greater powers in order to legitimize their group rule in given state. Persian control internal and external state power, they appoint judges to reside in highest court in Iran or diplomat that represent Iran in the United Nation these state justify their unjust through institution like United Nation on basis of state sovereignty.
If the United Nation is satisfied with Iran rule to maintain only order in geographical space, but the question is for how long?

Iran is complex society it is multi-cultural territorial state constitute of Turk, Arab, Baloch, Kurd, Turkmen, and other religion minorities and every one of these nations inside Iran territory are sovereign by virtue of will, and have right to self-determination that is guaranteed by United Nation. Persian are largest group within Iran, but Persians dwell within Persian territory. Iranian cultural group has maintained their cultural and internal boundary. For the peace and prosperity to prevail these cultural group must maintain their internal sovereignty, and govern state through legitimize mean, institution, social contract. People join state or in some cases separate themselves from state in order to protect their dignity, if state of Iran violate Baloch dignity they will defend themselves from the powerful neighbor that insists on discriminating them on basis of religion, language, culture, color, and is occupying their land and denying them their God given rights to live.

Iranian institutions are eroded and not capable, of generating any hope for future, Iranian mindset is corrupted, there are 50000 suicide bomber trained and waiting for Mahdi to assume command and attack the world in order to impose gods will on non believer. This is a serious dilemma the world has to face. (“if men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences, Thomas and Thomas“).

Centralistic Mullah-cratic Iran is the source of disability in the region now, eventually the world, to contain it now is much easier than to leave it for later, some of us at least within Iran realize that. The only ray of hope is to decentralize every Iranian institution, once destabilized replace them with institutions that support a nations self-determination in order to create stability and predictability.
Baloch have vision for the future that is a safer world democratic region, because democratic states resolves their differences through negotiation, rather than blood. Democratic regions trade with each other and reduce border restrictions. Baloch are suffering from border restriction imposed on them. And this will create an interstate-dependency between masses and reduced tension. People see interstate dependence as a source of income, creating real wealth, and support liberal society.
The contemporary state of Iran has been a war like state, it is the international communities role to search for permanent peace, the state of Iran senses that it is losing control on parts of its territory to its own non Persian nations. Persian are persistent to hold them by use of force , the threat may not be real, but consequences are real in term of lost of life and property.

It is time for the international community to convey strongest messages that Iran is not Persia, but a territorial sovereign state, with many nationalities with equal right to Persian, in failing to do so, it won't be too long before the world will be witness to another genocide.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sparsely-reported escalating insurgency being led by Baloch militants

26-02-2007
Dr. Abdullah Al Madani
http://www.bahraintribune.com/ArticleDetail.asp?CategoryId=4&ArticleId=142402

Unlike Pakistan’s southwestern province of Balochistan, which has been receiving extensive media coverage as a result of its uprising against the central government in recent years, Iran’s vast but sparsely populated southeastern province of Sistan-Balochistan has long been out of media glare. This, however, seems to be changing now with an escalating insurgency led by an obscure Baloch militant organization called Jundollah (Soldiers of God).

Given the absence of accurate demographic data on Iran’s ethnic and religious minorities, it is hard to know the precise number of Iranian Balochis. According to an estimate, there are some 10-15 million Balochis residing in Pakistan, Iran, and Afghanistan with tribal and family lines traversing all three countries. Iran’s Baloch population may at best be estimated at 4 million. Both Iran and Pakistan have always viewed Baloch national aspirations as a threat to the stability and territorial integrity of their countries. Thus, their successive regimes have not only collaborated in suppressing Baloch nationalism and culture but also neglected their Balochistan provinces in terms of economic development, education, and public services.

Little is known about Jundollah, which is believed to have first emerged on the scene in 2002 and is known for bloody attacks against high-profile Iranian targets including government and security officials. Similarly, available information on its top leader, Abdulmalek Rigi, does not go beyond that he is a 24-year-old bearded Iranian Balochi. Contrary to Tehran’s announcement in 2006 that its troops had killed Rigi in an anti-terrorist operation, the man appeared several days later in a video shown by the Dubai-based Al-Arabiya TV station to deny his death.
What is confirmed, however, is that Iran’s theological Shiite regime is facing a growing challenge in this isolated, backward province where the great majority of the population is Sunni. The February 14 attack on a military bus, in which at least 11 members of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps were killed and some 30 others were injured, was only the latest in a series of such attacks carried out by Jundollah in the last two years.
In March 2006, the group held up a convoy on the road between Zabol and Zahedan and slaughtered 22 people, including officials in the provincial administration of Sistan-Balochistan. In April, it killed two army officers and injured a Shiite cleric in the province. And one month later, it shot dead 12 Iranians on the Kerman to Bam highway.
Earlier in 2005, Jundollah had claimed the responsibility of the abduction of 9 Iranian security and intelligence officers along the Pakistani border, one of whom was executed by the group in early 2006.

The group justifies its attacks as revenge against Iranian security forces for committing alleged genocide and atrocities towards Sunni Baloch civilians. But the hidden goal is probably to make Balochis’ grievances and national aspirations known to the world, especially at this time when Tehran is pressurized by the West and Sunni-Shiite tensions increasingly overshadow the region as a result of developments in Iraq.
This is despite Rigi’s denial that his organization harbours separatist aspirations. In a rare telephone interview last year with Rooz, an Iranian online newspaper, he declared himself an Iranian and Iran as his home, stressed that his move was only aimed at improving the life of Iranian Balochis and protecting their fundamental rights, and advocated the federation of Iran and sovereign Baluchistan within a democratic state.
Tehran, which does not admit its institutionalized distrust of minorities, including the Baloch, and often denies ethnic and sectarian tensions in the country, has met the emerging uprising in Balochistan with force. It has first blamed the recent unrest on bandits smuggling drugs from Afghanistan and Pakistan. Now it accuses Jundollah of being associated with Al-Qaeda and the Afghan Taliban and cooperating with the Americans to destabilize Iran, but without presenting any credible evidence apart from the adherence of Baloch people to conservative Sunni Islam. Moreover, how can one believe that the Americans are supporting and assisting a group that is allegedly affiliated with their enemies at the time when Tehran itself uses the same concept to deny Washington’s accusation of Iran of sheltering senior members of Al-Qaeda, including Osama Bin Laden’s son Saad?

Observers, like independent analyst and consultant Chris Zambelis, argue that Iran’s emphasis on the alleged role of Al-Qaeda and the Taliban in the Baloch uprising is only aimed at showing itself as one of terrorism’s victims. And by brutally striking against Jundollah and its followers, it may be wishing to curry favour with the United States amidst pressure to concede on its nuclear ambitions and meddling in Iraq and Lebanon.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By Nizamuddin Nizamani
02-03-2007
http://www.thepost.com.pk/

The February 14 bombing of an Iranian Revolutionary Guards' bus in Zahidan, causing 18 killed and scores of injuries, and the February 28 ambush on Iranian forces near Pishin town that killed four and led to the kidnapping of two police officials, seems a new kind of violent trend that took many analysts by surprise. Iran, already in the limelight for nuclear-related tensions with the West, has been widely covered by the media for this internal violence for the first time in decades.

This may be a development out of the blue for some readers, but those keeping an eye on the local and regional conflicts across borders knew that the tempo for such extreme violence was building since years due to the alleged suppressive policies of the Iranian government against religious and ethnic minorities. A Baloch ethnic group, Iranian Resistance Movement, previously called Jondullah, accepted responsibility for these attacks in revenge for the recent wave of public hangings of Baloch youth in Sistan-Balochistan, which were the order of the day. In some cases this wave averaged dozens of youngsters per month on subversive and criminal charges.

Previously being a closed society, the Iranian authorities managed to suppress the flow of such information from reaching the world. The Iranian official version blamed the bombing and attacks on gangs of smugglers and criminals. This may be true, but the gangs of smugglers allegedly started operating across the borders apparently with the tacit approval of the authorities to export Iranian value added goods and commodities, specially petroleum products, to earn hard cash, during the decades-long economic embargo.

In this case however, it was not a simple group of smugglers but an organized political group of young militants headed by Abdul Malik Regi, in his mid-twenties, who inflicted terror on the authorities since a few years through organized ambushes as well as kidnapping of officials, among them a journalist. The journalist was, according to the group's spokesperson, killed mistakenly and they regretted that killing through their website.

Militancy in Sistan-Balochistan seems not to be proactive but reactive in nature and operating mostly independently. It appears to be the result of local issues and grievances against the local authorities, but lacks a coordinated network. After the ouster of the Shah, the ethnic minorities, including the Baloch, welcomed the new revolutionary group headed by Imam Ayatullah Khomeni. Some of them joined the mainstream political process but that euphoria was over within a few years as the revolutionary guards started targeting ethnic groups on the charge of being communists. The ethnic minorities again reorganized underground militant groups.

Credible sources say that more than 90 such organized militant groups are active in Sistan-Balochistan, small and large, with an average size of 30-50 and with the largest with around 80 members.

The groups' cohesion and bonding factor seems both sectarian and ethnic combined. The Baloch being different from Persians ethnically on the one hand, and a Sunni minority under Shiite majority rule, feel frustrated due to alleged unfair treatment. Though the infrastructure is far better in Sistan-Balochistan as compared to Pakistani Balochistan, the Baloch in Pakistan are reported to be far better off in terms of their socio-cultural empowerment than their counterparts in Iran, who were not treated at par with the majority community.

According to Mr. Nassir Buledi, spokesperson for the Balochistan People's Party (BPP) Iran, the Persians make up 40 percent of the total Iranian population and the remaining 60 percent are Baloch, Kurds, Arabs, Turks, Azeris, etc. In case a fair democratic federal republic is established, the minorities making up 60 percent of the population will outnumber the Persians, and hence will be able to establish ethno-sectarian minority-friendly policies.

It will not be out of place to mention that BPP Iran and other ethnic political parties are striving for a federal democratic Iran through peaceful means. But they never disowned the militant groups, who influence and indirectly dictate any negotiated deal due to their leverage and political clout on the ground.

The recent Zahidan bombing and ambushes may not be welcomed by the diplomatic quarters and intelligence community as violent methods are tantamount to causing havoc in civil society in addition to what it does to the designed targets. Given the lack of political awareness, combined with the perpetual consternation caused by the highhanded methods of the Revolutionary Guards, such actions cannot be ruled out in future as has been clear from the warnings issued by the Iranian Resistance Movement (Jondullah).

The world community needs to see this group not as a fanatic religious group but a minority nationalist group in Iran, where sectarian identity symbolizes ethnic identity. Specially when speaking of the Baloch, they are anything but religious fanatics.

In the past, Jondullah's predecessors like Dad Shah Mubarki in the forties and fifties organized similar militant groups and inflicted heavy casualties on the Shah's regime. But ill-informed and ill-equipped technically as they were, on March 24, 1957 they inadvertently killed an American military aid official Kevin and his wife Anita Carroll, traveling in an Iranian military jeep, and had to pay through their nose. At that time the Iranian intelligence agency SAVAK managed to misguide the US authorities and after a prolonged manhunt, Dad Shah was killed after eight months.

It was reportedly Dad Shah's brother Ahmed Shah's family's deportation from Pakistan to Iran that triggered the formation of nationalist groups in Balochistan, specially Makuran, and resulted in more coordinated across the border cooperation among Baloch nationalist parties in Iran and Pakistan.

The Iranian regime convinced the US and Pakistan about the future dangers based on that cooperation. That resulted in combined military action against the Baloch in the early seventies and we still face the effects of that heritage. After the Zahidan blast, the Pakistani ambassador in Iran was called for exchange of information. The Iranian authorities are building thick walls at selected points on the border and have warned the Pakistani Baloch on the border to leave the area. The violence, including rocket attacks, were reported continuing in the disturbed area till the writing of these lines.

Iranian diplomats are reported to be artful and highly skilled in maneuvering situations. The erstwhile SAVAK infiltration was reportedly deep rooted and believed to have affected even researchers like Selig Harrison who were made to believe many unfounded stories, including the killing of some influential and active Baloch players, who lived for decades after compilation of his book, In Afghanistan's Shadow. The information inaccuracy may be an outcome of the level of distrust for US policy makers among leftist groups and they might have avoided them out of fear that sharing of information may be lethal for them and US intelligence may hunt them down, being communist activists.

No wonder after the recent violence, the top priority of the Iranian state will be to establish the Iranian Resistance Movement/Jondullah and other organizations as radical fanatic terrorist groups. Iran will try to convince the world community to declare them terrorist groups, followed by eradicating them through expeditious military action in Sistan-Balochistan, which is already in progress.

However, the regional and international situation has U-turns and all need to realize that any future military action in that area will cause another humanitarian catastrophe in the shape of influx of war refugees into Pakistani areas, which are already volatile. Therefore, disturbance in that area may trigger a regional tension, which Pakistan and the allied forces in Afghanistan can ill afford.

All the stakeholders, including Iran and Pakistan, need to find some via media for stability in the region through non-traditional methods of conflict resolution, as traditional methods are costly in term of collateral and human cost and apparently proved futile so far.

The writer is a social researcher in Sustainable Development and Conflict Management Studies

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Mr Michael Ladeen

I am sorry that I couldn't respond to you earlier. I was away for few days. Today I read your article, Beyond Balochistan. Unfortunately, there is a big mistake in it which has already generated some serious concerns among some circles. Some people called me and said that my organization: Baluchistan Peoples Front of Iran (BPFI) has been involved in military operations in Baluchistan and they quoted your article. I want to say categorically that It was the Peoples Resistance Movement of Iran (PRMI) that carried out military operations, not Baluchistan Peoples Front of Iran (BPFI). We reported the news and made an analysis.

Baluchistan Peoples Front of Iran (BPFI) has never been involved in any military action at any time.

I have highlighted those parts of your article that need corrections and I have made the corrections under each part. To clear the air and to present our position correctly, I wish to ask you to publish this note in your media.

The note is attached and it is printed in the email too.

Yours sincerely

Reza Hossein Borr

Baluchistan Peoples Front of Iran (BPFI)
Reza Hossein Borr
14.3.07

Correcting Beyond Balochistan by Michael Ledeen

It was the Peoples Resistance Movement of Iran (PRMI) that carried out military operations, not Baluchistan Peoples Front of Iran (BPFI)

Baluchistan Peoples Front would like to express its gratitude for your very impressive article on Baluchistan in http://pajamasmedia.com/2007/03/beyond_balochistan.php, March 2, 2007.

Beyond Balochistan is a well written article that presents a realistic and objective assessment of the situation in Iran. Although there is a great misunderstanding. It was the Peoples Resistance Movement of Iran (PRMI) that carried out military operations, not Baluchistan Peoples Front of Iran (BPFI). The credit or criticism of February military operations in Baluchistan goes only to Peoples Resistance Movement of Iran. Our organization, Baluchistan Peoples Front, is a civil organization that believes in proactive civil campaigning and promotes peaceful campaigns against the Iranian regime.

You wrote in the second paragraph,"The Balochistan People's Front of Iran, which has claimed credit for several recent attacks on the regime's security forces in the area, has issued a fascinating and potentially important assessment of these activities. It's a well written and well argued “lessons learned” from the point of view of an armed resistance group inside Iran."

To correct this paragraph, it was the Peoples Resistance Movement of Iran (PRMI) that claimed credit for several recent attacks on the regime's security forces. Baluchistan Peoples Front of Iran made its own assessment and analysis of these incidents. We, Baluchistan peoples Front of Iran (BPFI), publish regularly a newsletter on the situation of Baluchistan in which we reported the news and made an assessment of political and military developments. We have not been involved in any kind of military operations at any time. Our role is to report the news and give assessment of different developments.

In the fifth paragraph you wrote,"The BPFI describes its recent attacks as a realistic test of the regime's power, and the regime failed the test. These operations were carried out successfully without even one casualty in Zahedan, the center of Baluchistan, which is a militarized zone.”

To correct this paragraph again, it was People Resistance Movement of Iran that carried out these military operations in Zahedan, not the Baluchistan Peoples Front of Iran.

In the sixth paragraph you wrote that, "Most analysts of contemporary Iran assume that the security forces, whether the IRGC or the fanatical Basij, have the situation well in hand, and while from time to time some demonstration or strike may take place, it will always be efficiently quashed. The Balochistan Peoples Front believes they have now shown that to be false. Indeed, they seemed surprised at the poor performance of the Iranian forces (“the Iranian soldiers are less skilled than has been claimed”).

As you have mentioned the Baluchistan Peoples Front of Iran has shown in its analysis of these incidents, carried out by PRMI, that most analysts of contemporary Iran make wrong assessments of the power and force of the Iranian regime.

In the ninth paragraph, "The Balochi Popular Front claims that their ranks are swelling; thousands of new members are said to have arrived." To correct this paragraph, it was the Peoples Resistance Movement of Iran that claimed that their ranks are swelling and not Baluchistan Peoples Front of Iran.

I would like to express my thanks for raising the issue of the Baluch people and request you to publish this note to clear our position. I emphasize again that Baluchistan Peoples Front of Iran is a civil organization and has never been involved in any military operations at any time. I also like to reiterate that we believe in civil campaigning.

Baluchistan Peoples Front of Iran (BPFI)
Reza Hossein Borr
14.3.07