Author: Burz Kohi; Translation: Ruzhn Baluch
In a land ravaged by war and colonialism, significant and instructive truths, along with the necessities of the time, await recognition behind veils that are not only meticulously and systematically placed by colonial systems but are also unwittingly or deliberately reinforced by those whose thoughts are overshadowed by the dark and ominous shadows of rigid, frozen principles. These individuals, breathing within the utopian world of artificial realities, contribute to the perpetuation of these veils.
To tear through these veils and illuminate one’s vision with the eternal light of truth requires hands that are unshaken and empowered with ultimate determination. However, these trembling hands often hesitate to act decisively when faced with the overwhelming abundance of innovation and intensity in defensive struggles and the retaliatory violence of war.
Deep within some dark and shadowy corner of the mind, colonial discourse disguises itself as an artificial reality, spreading its wings and offering comfort to the frail intellect. This veil, thickening with dark hues, strives with increasing effort to prevent the light from spreading.
However, today, when war has become an unforgettable and noteworthy reality, making its presence openly known; today, when defensive struggles, wrapped in the storms of innovation and intensity against the colonialist’s severe strikes, are exposing the psychological and mental vulnerability and fear of the enemy with violent and deadly blows, under such circumstances, it is not only essential to completely tear apart and annihilate this veil but also imperative to expose the colonial discourse and the narrative hidden behind the guise of artificial reality with research and scientific thought.
Thus, to understand the true spirit and essence of violence, to reveal the colonial discourses and narratives like terrorism versus peaceful struggle, and to highlight the necessity of innovation and intensity in armed struggle, a comprehensive understanding of history, research, intuition, comprehension, and the philosophy of war is indispensable.
In defensive and anti-colonial wars, when the colonised and oppressed nations, keeping the demands of the times in view, break the mortal cord of life and death, ready to embrace death in order to deliver the most lethal blow and cause irreparable harm through innovation and intensity in wars, the colonialists and occupiers are left with no choice but to reach the extremes of violence and bring their discourse and narrative to the level of reality.
When a war, infused with the philosophy of counter-violence and wrapped in the storms of innovation and intensity, becomes a source of threat, psychological defeat, stress, anxiety, and uncertainty for the enemy, and they are no longer able to sustain their imposed colonial dominance and oppression; when they are unable to continue exploiting the resources of the oppressed and subjugated nations, auctioning them off in global markets, advancing their colonial policies, further colonising them, and distorting their history, identity, culture, values, greatness, and national dignity; when they become alarmed and panicked by the defensive resistance or armed struggle of the oppressed and subjugated nations, the colonizers do not only adopt the path of extreme violence to counter armed struggle but also employ soft power policies.
Through various means, they propagate and promote narratives and discourses that not only mislead the global community and distance them from the legitimate and genuine struggle but also gain control over the minds of those among the oppressed and subjugated who are the architects of war. This approach and method are not exclusive to the colonial psychology and nature of Punjabis alone. In history, many colonial or modern neo-colonial powers have, on one hand, adopted extreme violence and genocide policies to counter war, and on the other hand, tried to distort realities by labelling legitimate and rightful armed struggles as foreign conspiracies, terrorism, grievances, or reactions to the absence of developmental projects.
To understand this policy, which military experts term as “soft power,” and to formulate a counter-policy against it, we must examine the psychology of war employed by colonizers, colonialists, and ruling classes through historical research.
The annals of history provide examples of colonial discourses and narratives propagated by colonizers, which postcolonial authors and scholars have made explicit. For instance, in 1952, in Kenya, an African country under British colonial rule, when the Mau Mau organization (Kenya Land and Freedom Army) led by Dedan Kimathi took up arms against the British colonial army and settlers, intensifying counter-violence, British newspapers and settlers not only labeled the Mau Mau but also the Kenyan people as “savages,” “terrorists,” uncivilised, and brutal in an effort to strengthen their narrative.
To perpetuate their dominance and plunder Kenya’s resources, they not only adopted policies of genocide and collective punishment but also went to great lengths to cloak colonial discourse in the guise of reality. These illegitimate colonial policies have been vividly depicted in the works of Kenya’s renowned fiction writer, novelist, and postcolonial critic, Ngũgĩ wa Thiong’o. For instance, in his fact-based short story The Martyr, he portrays the mentality of British settlers and the struggle for Kenya’s independence led by the Mau Mau organisation. In this story, when a secret operative of the Mau Mau, a Black servant, kills his British master and mistress who were involved in exploitative schemes and the distortion of Kenyan culture and identity, the news spreads like wildfire across Kenya.
Fear and hatred ignite in the hearts of British settlers who had seized Kenyan lands, and they begin to view the slaves working in their homes with disdain. In this story, Ngũgĩ skilfully portrays the narrative of British settlers. For example, two British settlers (a husband and wife) visit a British family’s home and share their thoughts about the incident. Among these characters, Mr. Hill believes that treating Africans with patience and understanding will help civilise them, whereas Mrs. Hardy and Smilez argue that these people are “savages” who cannot be civilised. They are brutal and cruel, with the sole purpose of terrorism and savagery.
To clarify this point, Ngũgĩ writes in his book Something Torn and New: An African Renaissance, “When colonizers turn a land into a colony, they attempt to plant a new mindset and memory while trying to bury the old mindset and memory.”
The above narrative not only reflects the mindset and systematic discourse of British colonizers in Kenya but also interprets the essence of colonialism. The claim that “we will civilise them” embodies a mindset commonly found among most occupiers and colonizers around the world. And when political or armed resistance is carried out against them, they label such resistance as anti-peace, anti-humanity, extremist, planted, and tools of external powers. They promote these discourses and narratives to legitimise their unlawful occupation and mislead both the global community and the nation with an artificial and fabricated reality.
Frantz Fanon explains this idea in his book The Wretched of the Earth, stating, “The violence of the oppressed people is nothing more than a reaction to the violence of the coloniser. Yet, the coloniser systematically denies their own violent methods and labels the struggle of the oppressed as inherent savagery.”
The colonial powers have always tried to suppress the point of innovation and intensity in the counter-violence of defensive and rightful freedom fighters using such discourses and narratives. Alongside this, they portray these fighters as merely a “handful of elements” who lack public support and sympathy, claiming they are foreign agents. This same tactic and failed policy were reflected in the Vietnam War.
During Vietnam’s struggle for independence, the colonial mindset of the United States towards the armed Viet Cong organisation can be seen clearly in an article titled Plea for Realism in South Asia by Roger Hilsman, the former Assistant Secretary of State for Far Eastern Affairs. In it, he states, “Analysing the situation in South Vietnam should probably begin with the realisation that we are not facing a (legitimate) war. This is not war but terrorism. Among a population of fourteen million, the Communist Viet Cong’s regular soldiers number only twenty-eight thousand, with sixty to eighty thousand sympathisers and collaborators. This campaign resembles the gang wars of juvenile delinquents in the 1930s.”
When comparing this perspective to the narrative of Punjabi colonizers, no difference is apparent. They, too, rely on expired and outdated discourses and narratives to counter the Baloch national struggle, attempting to perpetuate their colonial ambitions in vain.
This same failed policy of colonizers, ruling elites, and occupiers is highlighted by renowned author Robert Taber in his book War of the Flea. Taber writes, “To better understand this war, i.e., guerrilla warfare, one must avoid two major pitfalls. These are the two complex elements in which counter-insurgency experts are often trapped. The first pitfall is the theory of conspiracy. According to this perspective, revolution is the product of artificial orchestration and the actions of guerrilla warfare are driven by external forces, conspirators, and underground political actors who remain behind the scenes to advance their own agendas through this war.”
Explaining the second theory, Taber further writes, “The second theory is the method of naivety. This is an old-fashioned perspective that assumes guerrilla warfare is merely the identification and use of specific techniques and tactics that any individual can adopt and apply in the conditions of an unconventional war.” In other words, this warfare is seen as the work of isolated individuals, with no element of public support or sympathy.
However, according to Robert Taber, “The first perspective is based on inexperience, naïveté, and mistrust. It inherently reflects Western liberalism and its yearning for political democracy. Certainly, this perspective reveals a lack of trust in the decisions of the masses, considering them naïve, ignorant, uncivilised, and inactive—incapable of thinking for themselves and lacking the will or capacity for revolutionary warfare.”
Are not some of our so-called freedom fighters and intellectuals also trapped in this very ideology of liberalism?
When we open the window of history and examine the policies of violence and propaganda employed by occupiers against armed struggles resisting colonialism, it becomes easier to understand how they used all their tools with fascist and ruthless precision. Their aim was to protect their own people’s morale and to present a vague and distorted version of truth to the world. Alongside military operations, raids, massacres, genocide, and collective punishment, they activated their agents, so-called journalists, newspapers, media channels, and proponents of so-called democracy and democratic struggle. These were used to falsely portray legitimate and just struggles as fabricated, baseless, brutal, terroristic, and oppressive.
This aspect is worth noting in Robert Taber’s book War of the Flea, where he discusses the narrative of British colonial rulers concerning the Irish Republican Army’s (IRA) armed struggle against British colonial rule. According to Taber, “From the British perspective, most of the IRA’s operations were mere nonsense and baseless. Newspapers were filled more with ink than blood. Most often, the IRA’s armed operatives missed their targets. The barracks that were burned down were empty, and the destruction was largely symbolic; at times, the Irish themselves, rather than the British, were targeted by armed actions.” However, this propaganda was contrary to ground realities, which Taber has elaborated on in his book. According to him, British forces and colonial rulers in Ireland were so fearful of maintaining their hold over various cities that, in their view, every citizen was potentially an IRA volunteer.
To explore the foundations of colonial discourse and narratives, one must turn to the famous Israeli author and post-colonial critic Edward Said and his book Orientalism. In this book, he critiques and analyses the discourse between the East and the West, known as the “Orient” and “Occident.” The Orient refers to the East, and the Occident to the West. Edward Said explains further, writing that Western writers, intellectuals, analysts, and authors from various fields have attempted to bring forth a discourse in their works that portrays the East (Asia, Central Asia, and Africa) as ignorant, savage, brutal, and uncivilised, where the way of life is in a dire state.
He argues that Eastern civilisation, culture, and traditions were characterised as outdated and inhumane. For example, in his book, he critiques Joseph Conrad’s Heart of Darkness, stating that it reflects this very narrative, as it portrays African society and culture in the worst possible way. In an interview, Said mentions that there exists a prevalent thought in the West about the Orient, suggesting that its people are unaware of the principles of living, and their societies are rife with internal conflicts and struggles.
This notion is evident throughout the history of colonialism, where Western powers, as well as some Eastern countries, employed similar discourses to justify and perpetuate their rule over oppressed and colonised nations. Even when resistance movements emerged on a public level, colonial intellectuals, journalists, liberals, and politicians—steeped in these same colonial narratives—would argue that violent movements were barbaric and ruthless, and thus morally unjustifiable.
On the other hand, Frantz Fanon, in his book The Wretched of the Earth, writes about this perspective, stating, “Whenever the colonised rise up in resistance against the colonizers, they are told that their actions are irrational and impulsive. They are given lessons in morality and civility, and are told that their revolution must not be aggressive.”
Considering all the above-discussed aspects, we can delve deeper into the reality behind Pakistan’s use of soft power, violent policies, and the outdated mindset of so-called nationalists and intellectuals in the context of the Baloch national movement. Today, as the Baloch nation consciously embraces the philosophy of intensity and innovation in warfare, becoming an active part of the movement and pushing the enemy into a defensive position, the occupying state authorities and unthinking intellectuals and politicians continue to view the conflict through a narrow lens. To them, the most lethal strategies in war are nothing but brutality, aggression, and bloodthirsty madness.
On the other hand, Pakistan is rapidly exploiting national resources, erasing identities, collective psyches, and philosophies. If peaceful struggle, political assurances, or positive intervention from global powers are relied upon in such circumstances, the Baloch nation risks becoming irreparably disadvantaged. Viewing modern warfare under the colonial or Orientalist discourse as mere brutality, aggression, or fanaticism is nothing but an expired and archaic mindset. The measure of right and wrong, after all, lies in the hands of those who wield power.
In a defensive war against colonial occupation, the use of violence as a political tool can push occupying forces from aggression into a defensive posture. This conscious act of self-sacrifice not only reflects complete trust in a noble cause but also draws a line before the interpretation of power, emphasising that true builders of civilisation are those who refuse to compromise on their rightful struggle for freedom at any cost. They are not deluded by false optimism or naivety. They prioritise the philosophy of violence, not for its own sake, but because only through power can national identity, dignity, survival, and self-recognition be safeguarded. As Frantz Fanon aptly states, “The process of decolonisation is never resolved through gentleman’s agreements because colonialism itself is sustained through violence.”
Today, the Baloch nation has consciously accepted the intensification and modernisation of war and is not only actively participating on military fronts but also sacrificing itself for the defence of its homeland without the slightest hesitation. Instead of becoming complacent in this promising situation, efforts must be made to expand the scope of the war and push the enemy into psychological tension and unrest. Instead of seeking personal satisfaction, comfort, outdated ideas, or bowing before global powers with pleas, it is essential to dismantle the enemy’s narratives and discourses through practical actions. The paths of peaceful struggle are blocked from the very outset when confronting a cruel and oppressive occupying state. Colonizers only understand the language of violence.
On this point, Ho Chi Minh wrote, “If Gandhi or De Valera (the Irish revolutionary) had been born in a French colony, they would have long since abandoned their ideals and turned to another world.” In this context, is the Punjabi state not even more brutal and terroristic than the French colonizers?
Given the extent to which the enemy is employing every available method of oppression and violence against the Baloch people, what philosophy of nonviolence can stop them? A realistic analysis shows only two paths to counter oppression: either surrender by raising your hands and renouncing the fight for freedom, or strike back with such intensity that the enemy, fearing retaliation, hesitates to commit further violence.
As for those who repeat appeals to global principles, Pakistan has violated every international law established to protect human dignity and rights under the guise of counterinsurgency, and yet the world remains unmoved. Meanwhile, the oppressed are advised not to gouge out the eyes of their oppressor even as the knife is at their throats. Instead, they are expected to issue a polite press release saying, “Please spare us; we appeal to the civilised world to protect us from this beating.” If adhering to this logic makes us terrorists, then so be it—we would rather defend our necks first and appeal for justice later, even if defending ourselves means cutting the noose of the oppressor’s neck and the so-called global principles along with it.
Now, if we understand this concept through the philosophy of Nietzsche, he argues that there is a clear distinction between the weak and the powerful. He asserts that this world is fundamentally based on a struggle for power. Mocking weak individuals or nations, he states that the weak adopt what he calls “Slave Morality,” where traits like humility, compassion, and modesty are glorified to justify their helplessness. Yes, humility in strength is greatness, but the humility of the weak is nothing but cowardice.
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of The Balochistan Post or any of its editors.