Balochistan's Ancient Ties to Pakistan - 5000 BC to present

[Flintlock]

Isn't Balochistan claimed by Afghanistan?

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Isn't Balochistan claimed by Afghanistan?

Durand line is disputed.

However, unlike Kashmir, the Durand agreement between the GoA and the British exists. The question is over how long it was supposed to last (simplistic explanation). There is no international ruling on this, no UN resolutions one way or the other.

Nothing specific about Balochistan however.

Also, the people of Balochistan and NWFP both voted to join Pakistan, overwhelmingly.

Greater Afghanistan is an idea similar to Akhand Bharat. Of course, the Durrani empire encompassed almost all of Pakistan, so technically those advocating it should be advocating a merger of Afghanistan and Pakistan.

 

[Flintlock]

Durand line is disputed.

However, unlike Kashmir, the Durand agreement between the GoA and the British exists. The question is over how long it was supposed to last (simplistic explanation). There is no international ruling on this, no UN resolutions one way or the other.

Nothing specific about Balochistan however.

Also, the people of Balochistan and NWFP both voted to join Pakistan, overwhelmingly.

Greater Afghanistan is an idea similar to Akhand Bharat. Of course, the Durrani empire encompassed almost all of Pakistan, so technically those advocating it should be advocating a merger of Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Can you give me some details about this referendum, preferably from a reputable source?

So are you in favour of a merger of Afghanstan and Pakistan?

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Can you give me some details about this referendum, preferably from a reputable source?

So are you in favour of a merger of Afghanstan and Pakistan?

Err.. off the top of my head, check out Owen Bennet Jones's book I referenced earlier. But just google it - its a fact of history, not an interpretation.

The most detailed account of the events leading up to the referendum and after in Balochistan that I have read was by a former bureaucrat named AB Alam (I think) called Balochistan.

It recorded a lot of details, including those related to the Kalat issue, and reproduced many of the messages and conversations that emissaries of the British officials, Pakistani and Indian leaders, and Baluch Sardar's exchanged. Fascinating book.

I am not in favor of a merger - but I had to point out the flaw in the "Greater Afghanistan' argument.

 

[Flintlock]

Err.. off the top of my head, check out Owen Bennet Jones's book I referenced earlier. But just google it - its a fact of history, not an interpretation.

The most detailed account of the events leading up to the referendum and after in Balochistan that I have read was by a former bureaucrat named AB Alam (I think) called Balochistan.

It recorded a lot of details, including those related to the Kalat issue, and reproduced many of the messages and conversations that emissaries of the British, Pakistani, Indian and Baluch Sardar's exchanged. Fascinating book.

Well, for the record, the Balochi separatists say that the referendum was rigged, and the option of independence or merger with Afghanistan was not given in the polls, but simply a choice between India and Pakistan.

Also, Pakistani troops had flooded the region before the referendum was going to be held, thus compromising the results.

Apparently, Balochistan was declared an Independent nation like Nepal by the British, but then Pakistani troops marched into the region and claimed it as part of Pakistan. Later, the "referendum" was held which is claimed to have been rigged outright.

I am not in favor of a merger - but I had to point out the flaw in the "Greater Afghanistan' argument.

Since Balochistan is indeed claimed by Afghanistan, that makes it more of a bilateral issue than an internal matter, now doesn't it?

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

One clarification in my post above - let me refer to my post prior to that:

"The majority of the people of Baluchistan did indeed vote to join Pakistan through their representatives, with only some Sardar's wishing to form an independent State"

The Baloch referendum was unlike the NWFP one in that Tribal Jirga's voted to join Pakistan, after gaining the support of their tribes in favor of the decision.

The NWFP referendum (Shahi Jirga) was a direct one.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Well, for the record, the Balochi separatists say that the referendum was rigged, and the option of independence or merger with Afghanistan was not given in the polls, but simply a choice between India and Pakistan.

Also, Pakistani troops had flooded the region before the referendum was going to be held, thus compromising the results.

What do you expect a seperatist to say?

Pakistan barely had the staff to run the country, let alone go around rigging referendums, thats just an absurd argument.

And like I clarified, the Baluch one was through Tribal Jirga's, which makes the rigging accusation even less plausible.

Apparently, Balochistan was declared an Independent nation like Nepal by the British, but then Pakistani troops marched into the region and claimed it as part of Pakistan. Later, the "referendum" was held which is claimed to have been rigged outright.

That is incorrect as well - the status of 'States' was given to Kalat and some other states, not all of Balochistan, and they had the same choices as the other princely states, but India was ruled out since their was no contiguity.

The events around the 'troops marching in' are explained quite well in the second book I mentioned, but I'll have to check it out of the university library again to reproduce.

Regardless, 'troops marching in' is essentially identical to what was done in Hyderabad, and some of the other princely states by India. Both Countries used some form of pressure to get some of the States to agree to accession.

IIRC, referendum through Jirga for the rest of Balochistan was held before the accession of Kalat took place, and before troops 'marched' into Kalat.

Since Balochistan is indeed claimed by Afghanistan, that makes it more of a bilateral issue than an internal matter, now doesn't it?

Technically Afghanistan is not claiming Balochistan - it is arguing over the Durand Line Agreement. However, the agreement says nothing about time lines, and has not been overturned nor had any arbitration suggest alternatives to it.

In Kashmir the two sides went to the UN, the UN passed resolutions indicating it was disputed, and suggested a solution. The only legal document involved in Kshmir, the accession, is contingent upon a plebiscite as well, which has not been fulfilled.

kashmir is a much clearer case of disputed territory.

 

[Flintlock]

What do you expect a seperatist to say?

Pakistan barely had the staff to run the country, let alone go around rigging referendums, thats just an absurd argument.

And like I clarified, the Baluch one was through Tribal Jirga's, which makes the rigging accusation even less plausible.

If Pakistan had barely enough staff to run the country, how did it manage to hold a referendum? Its quite possible that either the results were manufactured or only a section favouring Pakistan was polled.

In any case, a referendum through Tribal Jirgas cannot be considered accurate. It has to be on a one person, one vote principle.

Yes, indeed, you'd expect separatists to say that the poll was rigged, but then you'd expect Pakistan to claim that the polls were fair as well!

That is incorrect as well - the status of 'States' was given to Kalat and some other states, not all of Balochistan, and they had the same choices as the other princely states, but India was ruled out since their was no contiguity.

I see, so the states were given the option of independence or joining Afghanistan in the polls?

The events around the 'troops marching in' are explained quiet well in the second book I mentioned, but I'll have to check it out of the university library again to reproduce.

Regardless, 'troops marching in' is essentially identical to what was done in Hyderabad, and some of the other princely states by India. Both Countries used some form of pressure to get some of the States to agree to accession.

Of course, but the Hyderabadis were quite happy about it, and still are. However, that doesn't seem to be the case with Balochistan.

IIRC, referendum through Jirga for the rest of Balochistan was held before the accession of Kalat took place, and before troops 'marched' into Kalat.

I see.

Technically Afghanistan is not claiming Balochistan - it is arguing over the Durand Line. However, there is a legal agreement on the Durand Line that says nothing about time lines, that has not been overturned nor had any arbitration suggest alternatives to it.

Same, difference.....if the durand line is invalid, then whither Pakistan?

In Kashmir the two sides went to the UN, the UN passed resolutions indicating it was disputed, and suggested a solution. The only legal document involved in Kashmir, the accession, is contingent upon a plebiscite as well, which has not been fulfilled.

Well, technically India approached the UN, not Pakistan. So since we took that decision, its ours to revoke as well.

As far as the accession is concerned, it clearly favours India...where does the plebiscite come in?

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Contrary to some of the revisionists who are rewriting history, Balauchistan’s 6 million people were not forcibly incorporated into Pakistan. The Baluchis have been living with the Indus Valley people for thousands of years.

Balauchistan decided to join Pakistan in a referendum held under the auspices of the Independence of India Act of 1947.

1. During the period of the British Raj, there were four Princely States in Balochistan: Makran, Kharan, Las Bela and Kalat, the largest and most powerful.

2. The British “On to the Oxus policy” was short lived. In 1876 Sir Robert Sandeman concluded a treaty with the Khan of Kalat and brought his territories–including Kharan, Makran, and Las Bela–under British suzerainty.

3. After the Second Afghan War of 1878-80, the Treaty of Gandamak concluded in May 1879, the Afghan Mmir ceded his districts of Pishin, Sibi, Harnai, and Thal Chotiali to the British.

4. In 1883 the British leased the Bolan Pass, southeast of Quetta, from the Khan of Kalat on a permanent basis,.5. In 1887 some areas of Balochistan were declared British territory.6. In 1893, Sir Mortimer Durand negotiated an agreement with Amir Abdur Rahman Khan of Afghanistan to fix thethe Durand Line running from Chitral to Balochistan to as the boundary between the Afghans and the British. 1920 British Raj

7. The Government of India Act, 1935, treats Kalat as an independent State and provides representation for it in the Federal Legislature.

8. In 1947, Kalat was ruled by Mir Ahmed Yar Khan.Indeed, the British had given many Princely States the choice of either India, or Pakistan during the immediate pre-partition period (though they were worried of having too many independent nations).

9. The Indian Independence Act, 1947 allowed the independent states to join either India or Pakistan.

10. The people of Balauchistan, overwhelmingly voted to join Pakistan in a referendum that was held on June 30, 1947, to ascertain their wishes on this issue.

11. The Khan of Kalat acceded to Pakistan on March 27, 1948. Like Kalat, Hydrabad and Kashmir, hundreds of other states also had the choice of either joining India or Pakistan.

Kettle calling the coal black. British lectures on colonialism - Battle of Britain - Zimbio

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

If Pakistan had barely enough staff to run the country, how did it manage to hold a referendum? Its quite possible that either the results were manufactured or only a section favouring Pakistan was polled.

With British help.

In any case, a referendum through Tribal Jirgas cannot be considered accurate. It has to be on a one person, one vote principle.

That was the choice of the people of Baluchistan - it was the system they lived by. One could argue that India and Pakistan should hold referendums in every state that acceded to them, since that obviously was not democratic.

Yes, indeed, you'd expect separatists to say that the poll was rigged, but then you'd expect Pakistan to claim that the polls were fair as well!

So pakistan brainwashed all the Tribal leaders? How do you 'rig' a jirga? Its out in the open with plenty of witnesses, not a secret ballot.

If they were convinced by Pakistan's leaders to join Pakistan, then that is what the democratic process is all about - using dialog to convince others of the validity of your POV.

I see, so the states were given the option of independence or joining Afghanistan in the polls?

Were the states in India given a choice to join a third country? The partition was of the British colony of India. The territory under British control had been legally signed off on by Afghanistan.

Of course, but the Hyderabadis were quite happy about it, and still are. However, that doesn't seem to be the case with Balochistan.

The Baluch were also quite happy about it, since they voted to join Pakistan.

Same, difference.....if the durand line is invalid, then whither Pakistan?

Not necessarily - this goes back to my point about the Durrani empire. If the Durand line does not exist, then technically Pakistan and Afghanistan should merge.

However, I am not certain how far East Afghanistan wants the line moved currently.

Well, technically India approached the UN, not Pakistan. So since we took that decision, its ours to revoke as well.

India approached the UN because it though the UN would declare Kashmir to be its free and clear - instead the UN recognized that the accession was already conditional to a plebiscite and passed resolutions to that effect.

India then accepted that decision, because it knew the plebiscite was a condition anyway. Therefore India accepted the disputed nature of the territory.

If you don't want to respect the UN, withdraw from it.

As far as the accession is concerned, it clearly favours India...where does the plebiscite come in?

Read up on the history of the accession - it was conditional to a plebiscite being held. I quoted an article with a link in my reply to GP in the Kashmri thread.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

On the question of the referendum in Baluchistan being 'rigged', I think strong evidence needs to be provided to continue that line of debate - otherwise its just a hypothetical.

Also, post 35 provides some historical background to Baluchistan and kalat.

 

[Flintlock]

With British help.

That was the choice of the people of Baluchistan - it was the system they lived by. One could argue that India and Pakistan should hold referendums in every state that acceded to them, since that obviously was not democratic.

Did you ask the Balochis whether they wanted a direct vote or an indirect one? That kinda beats the logic.

Maybe they should have, maybe they shouldn't have, but then that doesn't invalidate the claims by balochi separatists that the polls were rigged!

So pakistan brainwashed all the Tribal leaders? How do you 'rig' a jirga? Its out in the open with plenty of witnesses, not a secret ballot.

If they were convinced by Pakistan's leaders to join Pakistan, then that is what the democratic process is all about - using dialog to convince others of the validity of your POV.

We don't really know what Pakistan did down there....there are allegations ranging from coercion to elimination of those leaders opposing Pakistani rule.

The polls were boycotted by a large section of Balochi leaders, some claim.

Were the states in India given a choice to join a third country? The partition was of the British colony of India. The territory under British control had been legally signed off on by Afghanistan.

Technically, the British never even occupied Balochistan. They had simply signed a peace treaty with whoever was incharge I think. So if that is true, it means that Pakistan had actually extended its territory beyond its natural borders.

The Baluch were also quite happy about it, since they voted to join Pakistan.

Which brings us back to the suspicions surrounding the polls and the current situation in the province.

Not necessarily - this goes back to my point about the Durrani empire. If the Durand line does not exist, then technically Pakistan and Afghanistan should merge.

By "merge" you mean that Pakistan would become a part of the Durrani Empire in Afghanistan.

However, I am not certain how far East Afghanistan wants the line moved currently.

So has Pakistan taken any steps to resolve the disputes with Karzai, or vice versa?

India approached the UN because it though the UN would declare Kashmir to be its free and clear - instead the UN recognized that the accession was already conditional to a plebiscite and passed resolutions to that effect.

India then accepted that decision, because it knew the plebiscite was a condition anyway. Therefore India accepted the disputed nature of the territory.

If you don't want to respect the UN, withdraw from it.

What has prevented Pakistan from unilaterally conducting a plebiscite in its own territory? Wouldn't that send a strong signal regarding Pakistan's intentions?

Read up on the history of the accession - it was conditional to a plebiscite being held. A quoted an article with a link in my reply to GP in the Kashmri thread.

I am unable to open the pdf document. It shows and error. Can you copy and paste the stuff here?

 

[Flintlock]

On the question of the referendum in Baluchistan being 'rigged', I think strong evidence needs to be provided to continue that line of debate - otherwise its just a hypothetical.

Also, post 35 provides some historical background to Baluchistan and kalat.

I didnt' see any strong evidence in favour of Pakistan's stand elther. Does that mean that we accept Pakistan's viewpoint by default?

 

[Neo]

You need to read Balochistan's rich history, for more than 5000 years its been inseperably connected with the Indus Civilisation and therefor its part of Pakistan.

I'll post the history of Balochistan in a new thread in an hour. Need to upload few maps and images.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Did you ask the Balochis whether they wanted a direct vote or an indirect one? That kinda beats the logic.

So first there should have been a referendum on whether they want a direct vote or follow the customs they have for centuries, and then we should have proceeded? Thats silly.

The Baloch (and the Tribes in FATA) had (and have) lived for centuries, peacefully according to this system. It isn't that different from a parliament (as happened in Sindh, Bengal and Punjab) voting for a particular issue. The people we 'elect' are our representatives and authorized to act on our behalf and authorize polices on our behalf.

The Jirga system similarly chooses representatives from the Tribes who are authorized to act on their behalf. The widespread acceptability of this custom amongst the tribes is why the GoP and GoA have organized "Grand Jirga's" for the Pashtun Tribes in order to come up with a plan against the Taliban. Going with the established political system at the time was the correct thing to do, though as I have argued elsewhere, Pakistan should have started integrating them into the political mainstream far earlier.

Technically, the British never even occupied Balochistan. They had simply signed a peace treaty with whoever was incharge I think. So if that is true, it means that Pakistan had actually extended its territory beyond its natural borders.

Even if that is taken to be true - the 'princely states' in the region, including Kalat, acceded to Pakistan, and the remainder of the Tribes voted through Jirga to join Pakistan - so either way the will of the people and rulers was taken into account.

By "merge" you mean that Pakistan would become a part of the Durrani Empire in Afghanistan.

I am not sure who would become part of whom - considering Pakistan is by far the larger entity.

So has Pakistan taken any steps to resolve the disputes with Karzai, or vice versa?

A bone of contention between the two - Pakistan has offered. I think Karzai is hoping that Indian and Afgha intervention in Pakistan might destabilize it enough to break it apart and possibly allow for merging some areas through force with it.

What has prevented Pakistan from unilaterally conducting a plebiscite in its own territory? Wouldn't that send a strong signal regarding Pakistan's intentions?

But that is not what the UN resolutions call for, and Pakistan's position is that the resolutions be implemented.

I am unable to open the pdf document. It shows and error. Can you copy and paste the stuff here?

You can also check out Owen Bennet Jones's book for references to the same - his book is more detailed on the accession being conditional to a plebiscite. The PDF file I linked to only had that stub I believe.