Actually its a reality for more than 64 years now and not a dream......
Israel and India: Brothers In Occupation of Kashmir-A Long but Thought Provoking Article by: Jonatha
- Thread starter Wadaich
- Start date
mh.saghir
Minister (2k+ posts)
I agree to one point that Balochi people have been mistreated but my dear stories of Kashmir and Balochistan are two different stories:
Kashmiris have been oppressed from the very beginning and Balochis have not been treated equally...
so, stop hiding in the shadows of others mistakes...
mh.saghir
Minister (2k+ posts)
hello mr. Unicorn, please forgive me; I had a misconception about you, I thought of you a good and an intelligent person which you actually ruined by your last comment. So, sorry again, not for the misconception but for something which is coming ahead.
1st and last thing mr. intelligent and enlightened, at the time of partition Balochis decided to go with Pakistan which you haven't allowed to Kashmiris. So, mr. good boy you have no right to comment on Balochi's decision whether they want to live within Pakistan or not. It's our internal matter and we can solve it, so you better keep your little tongue inside of your beautiful little mouth and be silent.
sorry for being offensive!!! but I feel no sorry because it's my honor to defend my country...
Long Live Pakistan!!!
Unicorn
Banned
If king of Kalaat can succeeds to Pakistan and its all legal than when king of Kashmir succeeds to India that is legal as well-Thanks
Jack Sparrow
Minister (2k+ posts)
Then What you did with king of Hyderabad.We are accepting your logic ,keep kashmir , return Hyderabad to Pakistan.That's all legal-Thanks
Unicorn
Banned
When Hyderabadians start to ask for independence, sure we can include them into the mix. But being my brother you are always welome to Hydrabad.
mh.saghir
Minister (2k+ posts)
my dear, do you know the complete history of Balochistan; Balochistan formed itself as an independent state by all the members of Shahi Jirga , 54 of them which didn't include the Khan and his representatives either officials or non officials, voted in favor of Pakistan just to oppose the Pandit Nehru idology. This decision of Shahi jirga decision was made by the Mountbatten and British govt. Later on March 28, 1948 Balochistan was declared as the province of Pakistan...
so, that's why Kashmir is totally a different story than Balochistan. So, once again, stop making **** of issue...
Unicorn
Banned
Not concerned with SHAHI Jirga it is as good as King of Kashmir's Jira. Show me any source where the elected representatives of people have voted just like the Sindh legislature.
mh.saghir
Minister (2k+ posts)
dear sir those were the representatives of the people of Balochistan and this decision was made by British rulers. go and read some history; and by the way Balochistan wasn't under the direct control of the Governor rather his representative, I think you know what it means.
so don't mess your tiny little brain.
Unicorn
Banned
Lying comes very naturally to you. Provide me with the dates when elections were conducted to elect SHAHI JIRGA. Provide a credible source to support your claim not Pakistani History. I can post several other sources pointing to the same.
Source http://www.chapatimystery.com/archives/homistan/the_baluchistan_issue.html
Let me start with a bit of history. 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.
mh.saghir
Minister (2k+ posts)
june 30th, 1947 is the date when that jirga made its decision under the direct supervision of British govt.
and my dear, Mountbatten rejected the two proposal presented by Mr. Nehru and our Quaid-e-Azam; he rather decided to go with this traditional jirga just not to make a haste. and dear sir, that jirga was comprised of 54 people who voted in favor of Pakistan; so, I will say it again that don't compare us with your cruelty.
and by the way what is the credibility of your source of information which you mentioned earlier in your post. and by the way Balochistan is a part of Pakistan, so IT IS PAKISTANI HISTORY, if you have some problems then I can't help you. You can't just stand up and start pointing your fingers on us just to avoid your act of injustice.
only_truths
Minister (2k+ posts)
Kashmir resolution was not binding one and there was no vote on the resolution. Hence India and Pakistan are free to do what they want. That is why Pakistan did not remove its troops after the resolution and India refused plebiscite. And much worse China which supported the resolution did quite opposite in accepting Aksai Chin. Kashmir resolution clean bowled by all weather friend. (even though it was technically ROC (Taiwan) voted in favor of resolution , when PRC China accepted the UN security council veto status, this resolution is a binding on China - my view). Now in the last two decades, the world community at large with USA in the lead being the sole super power urge both India and Pakistan to settle the issue bilaterally and not plebiscite.
Today even if plebiscite held, POK will unanimously vote for joining India (unless militants vote on behalf of Kashmirs)and in Indian Kashmir because of the prosperity compared to POK, they might want a separate Kashmir. Would Pakistan agree to a third option for the plebiscite, i.e. Separate Nation which is not in the resolution? Then for all practical purposes the resolution is buried in UN records.
My view point is that Kashmir status quo as at present to be maintained marking LOC as international border. Once this is agreed may be we can have a visa less movement regime for people on both sides of border. An independent Kashmir, being a land locked Nation will have the fate of Afghanistan, much worse for Pakistan than India because both veritable arms in opposite directions.
Today even if plebiscite held, POK will unanimously vote for joining India (unless militants vote on behalf of Kashmirs)and in Indian Kashmir because of the prosperity compared to POK, they might want a separate Kashmir. Would Pakistan agree to a third option for the plebiscite, i.e. Separate Nation which is not in the resolution? Then for all practical purposes the resolution is buried in UN records.
My view point is that Kashmir status quo as at present to be maintained marking LOC as international border. Once this is agreed may be we can have a visa less movement regime for people on both sides of border. An independent Kashmir, being a land locked Nation will have the fate of Afghanistan, much worse for Pakistan than India because both veritable arms in opposite directions.
Last edited:
