Happy independence Day - Pakistan

[safriz]

It didn't, so called CC province was actually pashtun majority region.

View attachment 210745

It was not even proper province like SIndh/Punjab. Pakistan made Balochistan a province, gave them identity and a capital which was not theirs. A parliament.

Lasbela a sindhi speaking region could easily have been merged with Sindh but no, the idea was to appease the baloch at the cost of others. There is no question of legitimacy as Pakistan/India wouldn't have allowed little independent countries all around them. So not sure why you want referendum now.

Pkz don't post maps of pk without kashmir

 

[hydrabadi_arab]

Nothing against your post but I was just thinking that the indians do not shy away from showing all Gilgit-Baltistan to their occupied Kashmir therefore claiming Pakistan lands. I hardly anyone in Pakistan doing the same to their occupied lands. They are Buzdil nation, cowardly when confronted but we are not even confronting their aggressive has embolden to openly claim Azad Kashmir and G-B.

this is official map of Pakistan. We even claim Junagadh.

 

[El Sidd]

If tribalism is being framed as the obstacle to reform and integration, then we should know that the province isn't uniform on it.......

Makran, meaning Kech, Panjgur and Gwadar, never had a sardari system at all, and it's the most urban and literate part of Balochistan with its own universities.... The center of gravity of anti-Pakistan militant insurgency has already shifted there...... The fighters and protesters today are largely students, graduates and urban professionals organizing horizontally....

So "factor in the tribal mindset" is partly fighting the last war..... The more urgent question is what you do with an educated, politically conscious population that believes that they have exhausted every available legal avenue and watched the state respond with disappearances and military courts....

As for the tribal belt, the sardari system survived this long because the state kept it alive..... Sandeman's sardar-sarkar arrangement wasn't Baloch tradition, it was colonial administrative policy, and Pakistan inherited it wholesale because governing through 20 chiefs is cheaper and far more convenient than building institutions for millions.... And tbh, you can't outsource governance to tribal intermediaries for a century and then cite tribalism as the excuse for why schools, courts and revenue systems never arrived......

Coming back to the solution part, the tribal system collapses when the state actually shows up,.... Functioning courts so disputes don't need a jirga... fiscal transfers direct to local government so patronage doesn't run through the chief... Makran proves it on its own.


The starting point is simple, even if the execution isn't....... You cannot negotiate legitimacy retroactively, but you can build it going forward.....

Just 3 things you need, running together......

1) Real fiscal devolution and autonomy at provincial level

2) Political normalisation, meaning elected civilian government without establishment management
and

3) The missing persons file opened and closed honestly.... And an actual accounting of state conduct since 1948, not a managed narrative...

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

Edit: To be clear, as for the BLA and other terrorists who take up arms against the state, no mercy for those who refuse to surrender....... A militant with a gun is a legitimate target, full stop........ But that's containment, not a cure....... The real solution is denying them legitimacy and support among the locals...... Kill a hundred fighters and a resentful population produces 2 hundred more.... Address the grievance and the recruitment pool dries up on its own ultimately.....

Even doctorates and people who have been born out of Pakistan follow the tribal code regardless of which territory in Pakistan.

Do you think people would agree to your proposal as you claim there are only 2 types of Balochis left, open rebels and closet terrorists.

 

[M. Sarmad]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Sir, nobody is disputing the accession itself....... The Khan signed in March 1948, headed the Baluchistan States Union from 1952, and later became Governor of Balochistan in 1974..... Legally it's settled.


But that document proves Kalat acceded, not that the people of Balochistan chose Pakistan....... Two different claims..... Also, Kalat's members were excluded from the Shahi Jirga vote entirely, and even that vote was called unrepresentative by the League's own provincial president.......

The point stands.... The people of Balochistan, whether in the province or the princely states, did not choose Pakistan directly through a referendum or through elected representatives, unlike the other three provinces. That does not imply they would have chosen India..... Many Baloch preferred an independent Balochistan, a choice upheld by the 2 representative houses of Kalat, but that was foreclosed....


Furthermore, a ruler's signature isn't a people's consent...... That's not my line, it's Pakistan's own position at the UN...... Hari Singh signed an Instrument of Accession too, and we rejected it because a prince can't decide the future of millions who never elected him.... Same principle, or it isn't a principle.

So saying the people of Balochistan voluntarily joined Pakistan conflates two very different things....... And solving a problem requires accepting the facts as a prerequisite.

 

[Master Chief]

Sir, nobody is disputing the accession itself....... The Khan signed in March 1948, headed the Baluchistan States Union from 1952, and later became Governor of Balochistan in 1974..... Legally it's settled.


But that document proves Kalat acceded, not that the people of Balochistan chose Pakistan....... Two different claims..... Also, Kalat's members were excluded from the Shahi Jirga vote entirely, and even that vote was called unrepresentative by the League's own provincial president.......

The point stands.... The people of Balochistan, whether in the province or the princely states, did not choose Pakistan directly through a referendum or through elected representatives, unlike the other three provinces. That does not imply they would have chosen India..... Many Baloch preferred an independent Balochistan, a choice upheld by the 2 representative houses of Kalat, but that was foreclosed....


Furthermore, a ruler's signature isn't a people's consent...... That's not my line, it's Pakistan's own position at the UN...... Hari Singh signed an Instrument of Accession too, and we rejected it because a prince can't decide the future of millions who never elected him.... Same principle, or it isn't a principle.

So saying the people of Balochistan voluntarily joined Pakistan conflates two very different things....... And solving a problem requires accepting the facts as a prerequisite.

Poor analogy. Kashmiri Muslims had just observed the Jammu pogroms which resulted in the deaths and expulsion of hundreds of thousands of their kin at the hands of the very same Dogra who was now turning his attention to them. Hari Singh was illegitimate by definition but further delegitimised any writ he could have possibly claimed to hold over the people of this region by virtue of his own actions.