contra said:
1. Good research sher khan bhai. :P
Can you tell me from where you got this info?
2. Also, Indian states of Goa and Sikkim and Andaman Islands have been listed separately with India in brackets, can you please throw some light on this. :?:
3. This conspiracy theory was first posted on Ahmed "Crazy" Quraishi website "pakistankakhudahafiz". :evil:
Thankyou.
1. Learned this thing when I was in school in Pakistan. You can check wikipedia to confirm. Type Balochistan.
2 & 3.
I must confess. I was wrong in my earlier explanation. I was under the assumption that the US form asked for the state of the country that one was originally resident of not the country of origin. That is, in Canada when we are filling out the forms that are pertaining to multinational American companies which are obtaining information of the individuals, there are always fields for the country that one belongs to and the state of residence of that country. If your country does not have states then it implies the province or the territory but the field still says "state."
But clearly, my assumption was incorrect when I zoomed into your post it clearly said the country of origin and did not ask for any state/province.
Having said that, it says Pakistan besides Balochistan for a very good reason. Its not because USA is trying to pursue and support separation of Balochistan. It is because Balochistan got the full Pakistani provincial status only in 1970. Prior to that (1947 1969), it was incorporated into Pakistan as a combination of small states and territories. The legal status changed many times due to disputes until 1970 when it was finalized. Hence, if any one form Balcohistan migrated to US before 1970 they probably show on their ID cards the state of Balochistan in Pakistan. There could be small number of cases of people who moved to US prior to 1970 and still have not obtained US citizenship (CharlieChaplin lived for a long period in US but never obtained the US citizenship). Or there may not be any non-US citizens from Balochistan who came to US prior to 1970 but since the database of citizens contains old citizens who have shown the state of Balochistan as the country of origin, probably that is why that description has been left in the options of the country of origin. It is redundant now.
Goa same issue. Goa was a Portuguese territory until 1961. Similar disputes like Balochistan. In 1947 Portugal refused to give up its territory to India. By 1961, India launched an army operation and Goa was given the status of a part of the Union Territory of India (whih included other regions/areas besides Goa). Eventually, in 1987, Goa became the state of India.
The names of the countries to which Balochistan and Goa belong to are written beside them to accommodate older immigrants who moved to US when their territory or state was not officially a part of country listed in brackets.
If anything, we should appreciate the fact that US has accepted the fact that these states/territories have now officially become a part of the countries listed in brackets and is accommodating our older people.
Does anyone have a contact with Ahmad Qureshi? I think we should inform him of the fact before he uses this information in any debates. Or to criticize American policies. There are many aspects available for criticsm, excluding this one.
Contra: I think the same will be true for the other Indian places that you have mentioned in your post. You should check out their history.
PS I saw your post on Imran Khan's religion related article. I am a little busy these days but will respond to issues raised by you. I do not agree with your notions.
