US Baluch leaders seek Indian intervention

[Zob]

@manzoor elahi


IF balochistan CAN be saved it has to be done by the PUNJABIS if Pakistan disintegrates it will be because of the PUNJABI....time has come for the BIG brother to stand up and be BIG......it is time for PUNJAB to say ok fine we give 10% of our budget for 5 years to BALOCHISTAN.....and the punjabis to make average pakistanis feel that he is an equal.....

the reason i say this is because punjabis are BIGGER & STRONGER out of all the provinces... and are in the corridor of power....

however, we all stand UNITED under the flag of PAKISTAN....and it will be INDIA's biggest blunder to think that BALOCHIS will support INDIA...

[AgNoStIc MuSliM]

The Us however does not appear to have listed any of the Baluch groups as terrorist groups, though it does have the HuM Kashmiri group listed as such.

Foreign Terrorist Organizations

The EU does not list any Baluch groups either, though it also has the HuM and a bunch of Sikh groups.

[AgNoStIc MuSliM]

Originally Posted by humblehobbes

^^^ Not surprisingly, the call for the people's wish, (which is quite often heard in the context of Kashmir, not including certain members who list out quite a lengthy list of mostly defunct seperatist organizations working against India), is blissfully ignored here..

Of course - it is not disputed territory.

Just like it would not be appropriate to call for 'peoples voice' in Khalistan or some of the Eastern Indian states.

There is a difference between the disputed status of kashmir, justified by the GoI, Mountbatten and the UNSC resolutions, and the legal accession of Baluchistan.

The situation in Baluchistan, as an internal matter for Pakistan, is one of trying to remove the sense of lack of development and alienation.

The situation in Kashmir, as outlined by the UNSC resolutions and accepted repeatedly by the GoI (officially at least), through the fifties, was that of disputed territory to be settled through plebiscite.

No one is denying that the voice of the people should be listened to - but addressing the voice of the people of Baluchistan will be in the context of the Pakistani constitution, and with Baluchistan a province of Pakistan.

But, I second the Pakistani members' statements here.. India should not pay heed to the baloch seperatist's voice. They have a moral obligation there. Else all cries of Pakistan interference in Kashmir will fall flat.

Cannot compare Baluchistan and Kashmir, as pointed out above.

A comparison with Indian Punjab or the Eastern states might be better.

[hasnain0099]

Originally Posted by AgNoStIc MuSliM

Of course they are going to say that - Baluchistan is internationally recognized sovereign Pakistani territory - and admission of Indian support would be huge disaster for India as showing her supporting terrorism in another nation, while hypocritically crying about Mumbai.

well we cn expect such acrobatic moves from india and ofcourse US as well (they are not our friends as GoP thinks Friend of our two foes can be a friend of ours????) ok all this problem needs is pure gutts (which i doubt Rehman Malik and Mr Zardari Have) from Pakistani Govt to take the proofs out and present them before the UN. But there is a big but our media needsto be strong because International Media will do its best to neglect the efforts.But what is truth must come out.PA has successfully completed the 2 steps 1) throwing out TTP (whatever!) out of Swat and BM is underfire now 2) getting security from US that No infiltrations from afghanistan now the next track should be 3)put an end to BM in waziristan (US and IND will lose 50%) 4) Make it clear to US and Karazi that PAF could launch Preemptive Airstrikes in Afghanistan if NATO and Afghan Army would not have eliminated the terrorist camps and high value targets.

[AgNoStIc MuSliM]

Originally Posted by Zob

@manzoor elahi


IF balochistan CAN be saved it has to be done by the PUNJABIS if Pakistan disintegrates it will be because of the PUNJABI....time has come for the BIG brother to stand up and be BIG......it is time for PUNJAB to say ok fine we give 10% of our budget for 5 years to BALOCHISTAN.....and the punjabis to make average pakistanis feel that he is an equal.....

the reason i say this is because punjabis are BIGGER & STRONGER out of all the provinces... and are in the corridor of power....

however, we all stand UNITED under the flag of PAKISTAN....and it will be INDIA's biggest blunder to think that BALOCHIS will support INDIA...

Unless the government in Baluchistan actually invests the money in education and infrastructure, no amount of money is going to resolve the issue.

The government is controlled by Sardar's - the Sardar's have a vested interest in ensuring that the people they lord over remain backward, so I am not convinced that more money will solve the issue.

It would be interesting to audit the funds given to past Baluchistan governments to see where it was spent. Its not like they haven't been given anything - they have received funds in proportion with their population, and Musharraf doubled that IIRC (and I think we should definitely provide more than the population based formula).

[humblehobbes]

^^^ Second point which involves moral obligation is that, India should not be seen in the same light by the World(which usually means the West) as Pakistan, which is seen as aiding and abetting Terrorists(read as Freedom Fighters as per others).

[hasnain0099]

Originally Posted by humblehobbes

^^^ Second point which involves moral obligation is that, India should not be seen in the same light by the World(which usually means the West) as Pakistan, which is seen as aiding and abetting Terrorists(read as Freedom Fighters as per others).

why it should not been seen?

[wtf]

Originally Posted by AgNoStIc MuSliM

Of course they are going to say that - Baluchistan is internationally recognized sovereign Pakistani territory - and admission of Indian support would be huge disaster for India as showing her supporting terrorism in another nation, while hypocritically crying about Mumbai.

BLA said that, not India. BLA would say that even otherwise -- Claiming that they have Indian support will make Pakistan more antagonistic to them, not less. Give a dog a bad name and shoot it etc.

[EjazR]

I think some members (well most) have misunderstood why I posted this. I just wanted to highlight how a diplomatic statement can be read in different (and sometimes completely opposite way) espicially when the countries have tense relations and high emotions like with India-Pakistan.

Balochistan reference is taken by some to mean India "acknowledge" subversion there while others look to it as a possibility to "support" the BLA there. Similarly, the delinking of composite dialogue and terroism was meant according to Indian officials to mean Pakitan has to action regardless of wether dialogue on other things take place or not. While Pakistani officials potrayed it as terrorism is on a back burner and composite dialouge can move forward.

A classic study of diplomatese

In any case, IF India was to support subversion in Pakistan, it would be very likely Balochistan. I can agree with that. But this falls flat on the theory that somehow US, India and Israel are supporting the TTP. TTP is a homegrown problem and maybe some Pakistanis don't want to agree with this, but the sooner they realise this, the better for the future of Pakistan and surrounding regions

[Omar1984]

First of all the article is from Pakistan Christian post, which is not a reliable source because that websites contains all anti-pakistan propaganda and its not run by Pakistani Christians because Pakistani Christians are very patriotic Pakistanis.

Secondly, Indians think they can easily send their RAW agents into Balochistan and separate the province like they did to Bangladesh in 1971.
Pakistan of 2009 is very different from Pakistan of 1971, our ISI and Pak-Fauj are more powerful now than then, they are aware about Indian involvement in Balochistan. Also Balochistan is connected to all the other provinces, not like Bangladesh which was thousands of miles away, Bangladesh was (and still is) more nearer to India than Pakistan.

Finally, Balochis make up only 3% of Pakistan's population, not all live in Balochistan and not all want a separate country. Its only 1-2 tribes out of 50 Baloch tribes that are giving Pakistan headache. There's no way Pakistan is going to give up its largest province.

Pakistan government must do something about these sell-outs, maybe deny them visa entry into Pakistan, most of these sell-outs are living outside Balochistan/Pakistan and dont even have Pakistani citizenship anymore. Alot of them are from Iran's part of Balochistan and just pretend to be part of Pakistan's Balochistan because they want a separate Balochistan country because Shia majority Iranians treat the Baloch badly (Baloch are mostly Sunnis).

Also, unlike Bangalis, Baloch people are tribal people, the tribal elders runs the territory. They cant run a country, Balochistan as a country will become like a country in Africa run by tribal chiefs.

And one more thing, theres more Pakhtuns than Baloch living in Balochistan.

[Su 30mki]

Originally Posted by Omar1984

First of all the article is from Pakistan Christian post, which is not a reliable source because that websites contains all anti-pakistan propaganda and its not run by Pakistani Christians because Pakistani Christians are very patriotic Pakistanis.

Secondly, Indians think they can easily send their RAW agents into Balochistan and separate the province like they did to Bangladesh in 1971.
Pakistan of 2009 is very different from Pakistan of 1971, our ISI and Pak-Fauj are more powerful now than then, they are aware about Indian involvement in Balochistan. Also Balochistan is connected to all the other provinces, not like Bangladesh which was thousands of miles away, Bangladesh was (and still is) more nearer to India than Pakistan.

Finally, Balochis make up only 3% of Pakistan's population, not all live in Balochistan and not all want a separate country. Its only 1-2 tribes out of 50 Baloch tribes that are giving Pakistan headache. There's no way Pakistan is going to give up its largest province.

Pakistan government must do something about these sell-outs, maybe deny them visa entry into Pakistan, most of these sell-outs are living outside Balochistan/Pakistan and dont even have Pakistani citizenship anymore. Alot of them are from Iran's part of Balochistan and just pretend to be part of Pakistan's Balochistan because they want a separate Balochistan country because Shia majority Iranians treat the Baloch badly (Baloch are mostly Sunnis).

Also, unlike Bangalis, Baloch people are tribal people, the tribal elders runs the territory. They cant run a country, Balochistan as a country will become like a country in Africa run by tribal chiefs.

And one more thing, theres more Pakhtuns than Baloch living in Balochistan.

Well .. why Pak Gov always talking of proof and shows nothing, If Pak have proof then show to world and UN and let then decide.

Let World country ask India to stop them, But nwo the fact is that PAK don't have proof and only use this fancy thing only to counter their own terrorist activity.

[psugumar]

Originally Posted by Omar1984

Secondly, Indians think they can easily send their RAW agents into Balochistan and separate the province like they did to Bangladesh in 1971.

Pakistan of 2009 is very different from Pakistan of 1971, our ISI and Pak-Fauj are more powerful now than then, they are aware about Indian involvement in Balochistan. Also Balochistan is connected to all the other provinces, not like Bangladesh which was thousands of miles away, Bangladesh was (and still is) more nearer to India than Pakistan.

Finally, Balochis make up only 3% of Pakistan's population, not all live in Balochistan and not all want a separate country. Its only 1-2 tribes out of 50 Baloch tribes that are giving Pakistan headache. There's no way Pakistan is going to give up its largest province.

Pakistan government must do something about these sell-outs, maybe deny them visa entry into Pakistan, most of these sell-outs are living outside Balochistan/Pakistan and dont even have Pakistani citizenship anymore. Alot of them are from Iran's part of Balochistan and just pretend to be part of Pakistan's Balochistan because they want a separate Balochistan country because Shia majority Iranians treat the Baloch badly (Baloch are mostly Sunnis).

Also, unlike Bangalis, Baloch people are tribal people, the tribal elders runs the territory. They cant run a country, Balochistan as a country will become like a country in Africa run by tribal chiefs.

And one more thing, theres more Pakhtuns than Baloch living in Balochistan.

First you stop assuming that India has covet operations inside your country. Unlike Kashmir where in Pakistan has openly supporting Kashmir "Freedom Fighters" in the name of "non state activists" , India has never accepted having any role in baloch.

India has very close relationship with Afghanistan and spending Billions in reconstructing the country and unlike US evrything we spend is for people for Afghans and not for military.

Before 1971 Bangladesh elected some rebels not rulers, Before freedom India & Pakistan ruled by ?

Unstable Pakistan at any means will not be in interest of India as we are still a poor country and we need lots and lots of money to grow ,we cannot afford one more failed state near by to become a Chinese /US puppet .

[vsdoc]

Originally Posted by AgNoStIc MuSliM

Of course - it is not disputed territory.

There is a difference between the disputed status of kashmir, justified by the GoI, Mountbatten and the UNSC resolutions, and the legal accession of Baluchistan.

The situation in Baluchistan, as an internal matter for Pakistan, is one of trying to remove the sense of lack of development and alienation.

The situation in Kashmir, as outlined by the UNSC resolutions and accepted repeatedly by the GoI (officially at least), through the fifties, was that of disputed territory to be settled through plebiscite.

No one is denying that the voice of the people should be listened to - but addressing the voice of the people of Baluchistan will be in the context of the Pakistani constitution, and with Baluchistan a province of Pakistan.

Cannot compare Baluchistan and Kashmir, as pointed out above.

I beg to disagree.

The region was largely under Iranian kingly control and the autonomous principality of Kalat. The British wrested control away from the Khan of Kalat in the early 1840s and it became the staging ground for the various Afghan-British wars (the Great Game) in the later half of 19th century. The 1876 treaty between the Khan of Kalat and Robert Sandeman accepted the independence of the Kalat as an allied state with British military outposts in the region. After the 1878 Afghan War, the British established Baluchistan as a provinicial entity centered around the municipality of Quetta – Kalat, Makran, and Lasbella continuing to exist as princely realms. The British interest in the region was largely to use it as a land-mass bulwark against Central Asian encroachments. Besides a train track, the development and settlement of British holdings excluded most of the tribal population. The administrative and legislative reforms of late 19th and early 20th century India overlooked Baluchistan. Around the 1930s, Baluchi nationalist parties emerged to contest for freedom from British rule. They took the princely state of Kalat as the focal point of a free and united Baluchistan. Iqbal’s vision of autonomous federation of Muslim state included Baluchistan but the Khan of Kalat never brought into the Punjabi nationalist paradigm, arguing that the Kalat had special treaty powers. Baglar Begi Khan declared the independence of Kalat on August 15, 1947. He assured the neo-state of Pakistan that Kalat will participate in the defense and infrastructure but will be autonomous. That didn’t go over well at all and the Pakistani army entered the region to occupy the area immediately. On Mar 27, 1948, the Khan of Kalat gave in to the State of Pakistan and his old attorney M. A. Jinnah. His brother Abdul Karim Baloch refused to surrender and revolted until his arrest in 1950. Baluchistan was put under Governor General control and no elective body formed in Baluchistan until 1973.

After Partition, the threat of E. Pakistani – read Bengali – hegemony (55% of population at the time), forced the Punjabi military and civil elite (in 1947, Punjabis made up 77% of the army being only 25% of the population) to consitute W. Pakistan as One Unit in the 1956 Constitution. This was done presumably to guarantee equal representation for W. Pakistan but the measure was highly unpopular in Sindh, Baluchistan and NWFP because it meant rule of the Punjabi over their regional interests. Separatist, sub-national movements triumphing local languages and cultures and protesting Punjabi hegemony arose in all the three states. Especially in Baluchistan, the Khan of Kalat led a stringent opposition to the One Unit. But the wave of military dictatorships quashed all such designs. In 1970, Yayha Khan dissolved the One Unit to appease E. Pakistan but the horrific damage done by the army in soon-to-be-Bangladesh proved too much.

After 1971, the sub-nationalist movements in Sindh and Baluchistan demanded their fair share of the nationalist pie. With Bangladesh’s independence, Punjab became the most populous and richest state in the country. It had 58% of the population while Baluchistan had 4%. Led by Bhutto’s central populism, Baluchistan had its first elected body in 1972. The National Awami Party won the majority of the seats in Baluchistan and started making noises about state rights. In 1973, it was clear to the NAP that Baluchistan was the least developed province with the majority of civil and military bureaucracy coming from Punjab. They, quite correctly, saw this as a colonial exploitation. The discovery of natural gas reserves at Sui had made the area incredibly vital to Pakistan and Iran’s developmental programs. The refusal by the Bhutto’s central government to allow NAP internal autonomy escalated a tense situation into an outright revolt. Bhutto dismissed the Baluchistan assembly and re-instituted Governor’s rule. The Baluchi nationalists launched an all-out military resistance.

From 1973-1978, roughly 60,000 Baluchi tribesmen and militia have faced off against the Pakistani army. Iran, eager to quell any similar uprising in its bordering area, has contributed airforce and personnel to the Pakistani efforts. They bombarbed Baluchi villages into submission. Bhutto’s ouster, via Zia’s military coup, forced a calm onto the situation as Zia launched into his One Pakistan Through Islam program. The Afghanistan war, the Iranian revolution and the Zia’s policies made Baluchistan into an island of outsider activity. US/UN aid for Afghani refugees poured into the metropolitan areas. During the 90s, the Benazir/Nawaz Sharif governments did little for Baluchistan as the Baluchi nationalist parties floundered in exile.

After The General landed into power (get it?), he tried to foster new relationship with Baluchistan. Over the last three years, the Kachhi Canal, Mirani Dam, Gwadar Port, Makran Coastal Highway, Saindak Copper Project and Quetta Water Supply Scheme were announced by Islamabad. Over 300 percent increase was made in the national budget for development programs in Baluchistan. Yet, all these things have failed to materialize from paper into concrete.

These latest incidents emerge from the same calls for Baluchistan’s equal share in the national programs and right to self-administer. The catalyst seems to be the assault on a female doctor, Dr. Shazia Khalid, by a gang of employees of the PPL at Sui. The company management, along with the local police, tried to quash the issue while the central authorities ignored all pleas to intervene. This caused the initial attack on the Sui facility. Nawab Akbar Bugti, the leader of Democratic National Party Baluchistan, clearly stated that the attack was borne out of frustration on the lack of action against the employees who did the assault and was NOT a nationalist struggle for freedom by the tribals. The General, on the other hand, is going to play this as another internal/extrenal threat to Pakistan and seems determined to carry out a military response. His pointed reference to the 1973 uprising is meant to warn the Baluchi tribals that he will not negotiate on his terms.

Today’s actions by the tribals and the military response in Baluchistan can be understood within the context of the acrimonious central-regional relationship in Pakistan. The rights of states, the rights of minorities, the rights of individuals are all negotiated within the vaccum of Islamabad military power-brokers. Having no access to that, the aggrieved parties find no alternative except violent struggle. The history of MQM, of Sindh, of Waziristan and, of Baluchistan provide ample attestation to that reality. I hate to say it again but here it goes: there is no way out except a democratically elected and constituted assembly that will re-imagine Pakistan as a federation with a secular and civil Constitution at the helm.

(source: The Baluchistan Issue)

Looks to me like the Balochistan issue is far from being a de-facto internal issue of a sovereign nation as is being made out here. I must admit that as an Indian I never paid much attention to what was happening there for precisely the same reason, but reading various threads here piqued my interest and I did some reading and from what I read the issue is far from cut and dry "Pakistani" ..... based on precisely the same grounds our Pakistani brothers refuse to concede that Kashmir is India's internal issue.

Please do not take this as a flame bait, and if I am seeing things wrongly, please feel free to educate me and many others here who simply fail to see the difference or the similarity ..... whichever way you want to look at it.

Cheers, Doc

[AgNoStIc MuSliM]

Vsdoc,

Out of that long post, let me point out the most important part:

"On Mar 27, 1948, the Khan of Kalat gave in to the State of Pakistan and his old attorney M. A. Jinnah. "

Or in more neutral language, the Khan of Kalat officially acceded to Pakistan. The territories comprising Baluchistan are therefore now officially and legally a part of Pakistan.

Now how exactly is this claim of yours valid? The accession is legal and complete, the Iranians don't claim the territory and the Afghans have no legal case.

"Looks to me like the Balochistan issue is far from being a de-facto internal issue of a sovereign nation as is being made out here."

[vsdoc]

Dear AM,

I read that part. As also the next two sentences "His brother Abdul Karim Baloch refused to surrender and revolted until his arrest in 1950. Baluchistan was put under Governor General control and no elective body formed in Baluchistan until 1973." I also read the part about the Pakistan Army forcefully occupying the area in 1948, much as they around the same time did the part of Kashmir you occupy today.

I have a Balochi friend (also a biker) studying here in Pune ..... he come from one of the few very rich families there. Happy go lucky kid, into good clothes, girls, partying, like any other late-teen early-20s kid today. The only thing he gets truly hyper about (to the point of getting violent even) is if you bring up Pakistan and what is happening in Balochistan today.

I would not be exaggerating if I say that he probably hates Pakistanis more than even some of our hard-liner Indians. He also has pretty clear and vocal and radical views on Balochis and Pakistanis not even being from the same stock racially, and considers himself and other Balochis to be “pure blood” and closer in lineage to Iranis and Afghans.

He says Balochis do not consider themselves to be Pakistani ..... nor Afghan ..... nor Irani ..... they consider themselves to be Balochis ...... a distinct nation in itself ..... long before the partition of India. They feel oppressed, passed over, used, exploited, and marginalized under what they feel is a foreign rule (he paints a pretty Wild West picture of his “country”).

A nation which shares parts of Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iran ...... and quite a big chunk at that. So the “claims” legal, existent or otherwise of Iran and Afghanistan, at least for him and other Balochis, do not come into the picture. He is too young to remember the earlier 4 “Wars of Independence” fought with Pakistan, but that is how he refers to what you guys refer to as an “internal separatist movement.”

I must admit I used to think (indeed dismiss) of him as a very sweet but advantaged elitist spoilt brat spouting pseudo-radical-militant gibberish, but I think from what I have read over the past few days, there seems to be more than just a little truth in what he says.

Over to you …..

Cheers, Doc