Saturday, March 11, 2017

CHAIRMAN POE INTRODUCES PAKISTAN STATE SPONSOR OF TERRORISM ACT OF 2017


March 92017


WASHINGTON, D.C.—Today, Congressman Ted Poe (TX-02), Chairman of the House Subcommittee on Terrorism introduced H.R. 1449, the Pakistan State Sponsor of Terrorism Act of 2017. The bill requires the President to issue a report within 90 days detailing whether Pakistan has provided support for international terrorism. Thirty days after that, the Secretary of State is required to a submit a follow-up report containing either a determination that Pakistan is a state sponsor of terrorism or a detailed justification as to why it does not meet the legal criteria for such a designation.

“Not only is Pakistan an untrustworthy ally, Islamabad has also aided and abetted enemies of the United States for years.  From harboring Osama bin Laden to its cozy relationship with the Haqqani network, there is more than enough evidence to determine whose side Pakistan is on in the War on Terror. And it’s not America’s. It is time we stop paying Pakistan for its betrayal and designate it for what it is: a State Sponsor of Terrorism.
###

Saturday, February 25, 2017

Mir Suleman Daud Ahmedzai (centre) addressing ”The history of Balochistan revisited” at the House of Lords in London on February 23, 2017.

Mir Suleman Dawood Jan Ahmedzai

At extreme right is Bob Blackman, MP

His Highness the Khan of Kakat Suleman Daud speech in the house of lord 23/2/2017;
The British authorities in India did always consider Baluchistan as an independent and sovereign entity and never as part of the India . The 1854 and 1876 treaties between British government and the Khan of Kalat recognised Baluchistan as a sovereign country outside India. In the partition plan of 3 June 1947, both Pakistan and the British had accepted Kalat State's independence and sovereignty. The British withdrawal plan from India was announced the Viceroy of India decided whether to entrust the responsibility of the Leased lands to Kalat  (Baluchistan) or Pakistan.

This decision was in contravention of all international laws, as the area called British Baluchistan was leased out to British India by a treaty agreed upon by the sovereign Khan of Baluchistan and Britain. After British withdrawal, the area's should have been handed over to Kalat Baluchistan.

On the objection of Khan of Kalat, the British agreed that the question of the sovereignty over the leased areas would be discussed between the representatives of Pakistan and Kalat. But with the obvious assistance of British Assistant to Governor General in Baluchistan, a controversial and much manipulated referendum was held in Quetta . It was announced that the British Baluchistan has opted to join Pakistan.

On 4th August 1947, a three parties agreement was signed between Pakistan, the British and Kalat Baluchistan called, The Standstill Agreement, in which the sovereign status of Kalat Baluchistan was accepted. The article I of this agreement stated that: the Government of Pakistan recognises the status of Kalat as an independent sovereign state which has Treaty relations with the British Government, and whose position is different from that of other Indian states."

The Khan declared Kalat Baluchistan independent on 11th August 1947, three days before the independence of Pakistan. The Khan affirmed his intention to build Baluchistan as a prosperous sovereign country in which Baluch could retain their identity and live in accordance with their traditions. It will establish relations through treaties of friendship with neighbouring states of Pakistan, Iran and Afghanistan as well as with India and the outside world. Soon after the independence elections were held to Baluchistan two legislature chambers and a period of tranquillity and peace ensured in the country.
In the meantime Pakistan began to pressurise the newly independent Kalat State to join Pakistan and an uneasy calm appeared in relations between Kalat and Pakistan. Talks between Pakistan and Kalat dragged on for fairly a long time. Pakistan continued to harass the Khan and Baluch State machinery on various pretexts. Pakistan was engaged in conspiracies and underhand tactics to compel the Khan to join Pakistan. On 26th March 1948 Pakistan army was ordered to move into Baluchistan coastal region of Pasni, Jiwani, and Turbat. This was the first act of aggression prior to the march on Capital Kalat by Pakistani military detachment on 1st April 1948.


1-      "The question of constitution positions on confederacy unit, tribal land, leased area and question of sovereignty of the Kharan and Lasbela.

The constitution position of Kharan and Lasbela had been regarded by the British as part of Kalat Baluchistan as two confederate units. Of which the Khan of Kalat was the sovereign.
The Sovereignty of leased land, (Nushki,Chagai (1899) agreement of Quetta and Nasserabad), remained with the Khan of Kalat.

1-      1947 independent and 1948 occupation of Baluchistan.

At first Jinnah tried to persuade the Khan of Kalat as the head of Baluch confederacies to join Pakistan. The Khan of Kalat put Jinnah proposal to the lower house and upper house in which both Baluch houses of Parliament rejected Jinnah's appeal instead the Parliaments proposed cooperation between the two states.
M.A. Jinnah was Kalat Baluchistan's lawyer, as the lawyer {Legal Adviser} he learnt a lot about the Baluch internal matters and Baluchistan politics. M.A. Jinnah wasted no time to use it against the Baluch.

After Pakistan's independence Jinnah was appointed Governor General of Pakistan.  
The British and new born Pakistan could not deny Baluchistan its independence.  After the independence Jinnah was encouraged by the British Ambassador at Karachi had change of heart about the independence of Baluchistan. Jinnah had managed to isolate the Khan of Kalat. The Pakistani forces had blockaded the Capital of Baluchistan Kalat and moved forces in Makran.
Makran was a district of Kalat.  Jinnah declared Makran as a princely state in order to sign agreement.



2-     Did the Jinnah have the mandate to declare Kharan, Lasbella and Mukran as princely states?

The Baluch confederacy was formed in the 12th century.  Kharan and lasbela were part of the Baluch confederacy which first formed in 12th century and survived in part till 1948. Constitutional position of Kharan (R/1/34/59) (Kalat state council R/134/52) the Khan of Kalat was the head of the Baluch confederacy.

Jinnah declared Makran a district of Kalat as princely State. Jinnah had no mandate to declare Kharan and Lasbela as princely States which were part of Baluch confederacy.

Nawab of Kharan and Jam of Lasbela during British India rule had requested the Crown representative to declare their states as princely states but the crown representative rejected their claims. The crown representative wrote to them that the Khan of Kalat as the head of Baluch confederacy is the sovereign.


A)     M.A. Jinnah had no legal mandate to clear the Kharan, Lasbela and Makran as princely states. Baluchistan was sovereign country and the Khan of Kalat as the head of the Baluch confederacy was the sovereign.

B)     The Nawab of Kharan and Jam of Lasbela also had no mandate to sign treaty with foreign power. To declare Makran as princely state was insult to the Baluch and international Standard.

4-Conclusion"

Ladies and gentlemen Baluchistan is occupied land. The Baluch are the victim of the geopolitics. Pakistan was allowed to occupy Kalat Baluchistan and has created a false narrative. The Baluch have acquired identity and ethno consciousness before the formulation of the nationalism doctrine. They have been a self-defining ethno culture through history even if they did not have the required sense of social and political solidarity to assert themselves as a nation as it is understood in today’s world.

The Baluch as proud Nation reject foreign domination and strive for an independent United Baluchistan. My appeal to the international community and specially the British Crown and Government. Is that to help us to gain our dignity and independence from the cradle of terrorist the Punjabi military state

Sunday, February 19, 2017

Saturday, January 28, 2017

The Baluch are the victim of The Arab and Persian, Shiite and Sunni rivalry in the Middle East.




Iranian have successfully introduced Baluchistan and the Baluch to the world communities as well as to Iranian as the land of drug and drug traffickers, they have institutionalised the hate against the Baluch. The Iranian regime has been portraying the Baluch as Wahabbi and Sunni Jihadi group in order to justify the Baluch killing in the Name of the Sunni fundamentalist inside Iran. Baluch are Sunni but they are not sectarian.

Iran is a multi-ethnic and multi religion state. The policy of the state has been one language, one religion and single nation with a single identity which is self-contradictory. The Iranian elite are insecure about their state ethnic diversity and multi religions character and they are feeling threatened.


The Baluch are separate ethnic from the rest of Iranian many ethnic groups and the Baluch follow the Sunni sect of Islam. Iran is a Shiite majority State. There are a strong sense of Nationalism and quest for national liberation from Iran within the Baluch. The expression of rights to self-determination viewed by dominant groups as the threat to the state, therefore self-determination is not tolerated by the Persian and Shiite who have dominated the State.

Broadly speaking the state has sought to standardise and assimilate the Baluch into single Persianised nation but failed.

The government view the Baluch as disloyal to the State, the Shiite view the Baluch as imposter and the Baluch view the State as the threat to the Baluch economy and existents.

 The Shiite and Sunni hatred is well documented and it is the biggest source that has destabilised the Middle East and the Baluch are the victim of never ending sectarian war.
The Most people who are at the risk of execution in the Iranian occupied Baluchistan are those who are trying to defend the basic rights to justice within the limits of the Iranian judiciary system.
 These basic defenders of the Baluch rights within Iran constitutional limits are accused of an arm struggle against the regime and are labelled as a collaborators of the Arab Sunni States, America and Israel.

Iranian have successfully introduced Baluchistan and the Baluch to the world communities as well as to Iranian as the land of drug and drug traffickers, they have institutionalised the hate against the Baluch.

 The Iranian regime has been portraying the Baluch as Wahabbi and Sunni Jihadi group in order to justify the Baluch killing in the Name of the Sunni fundamentalist inside Iran. Baluch are Sunni but they are not sectarian.

The United Nations has paid for the wall that the Iranian regime built on Iran and Afghanistan border, I am sure the United Nations could also put pressure on Iran to provide equal justice to all citizens. But unfortunately the Baluch has no voice in that privilege club, only dominant ethnic groups who control the states have voice in the United Nations.
.




The Shiite Sunni war is one of the longest conflict in the human history. The Baluch is the victim of The Arab and Persian, Shiite and Sunni rivalry in the Middle East.
Ladies and gentlemen there are drug coming from Afghanistan through Baluchistan into Iran, Europe and Arabian Sea but the Baluch have no control over their land. The Baluch have no means to stop the human and drug trafficking. The Iranian revolutionary guard (Al-Quads) control the Baluchistan and the drug as well as routes of the drug.


The Baluch issue with Iran is the national right to self-determination. Baluch are Sunni but they are not sectarian. Iranian regime has control over Shiite and Sunni fundamentalist inside Iran and outside Iran. Iran has benefited from the Shiite and Sunni conflicts in the Middle East as well as not ending conflict in Afghanistan. Iran has armed and financed the Sunni Taliban in Afghanistan. The Shiite Sunni conflicts have united the Arab Shiite and non-Arab Shiite with the only Shiite state that is Iran.
Mehrab. D. Sarjov is a Baluch political activist based in London campaign for an independent Baluchistan.


Between 314 and 544 persons have been executed in Iran in 2013 alone
 October 30, 2013
16 Baloch political prisoners were executed in Iran in an act of revenge for an attack on the border security forces. The executed Balochis were already in Zahedan prison and took no part in the attack. It was alleged that the Baloch prisoners crossed the border from Pakistan and they were executed after an encounter between Mersad, an Iranian paramilitary group and another armed group. In this encounter, according to government news agencies, 17 border security personnel were killed. Public prosecutor Mohammad Marziyeh announced that “Sixteen rebels linked to groups hostile to the regime were hanged in the prison of Zahedan in response to the death of border guards in Saravan, Iran.”
Many Balochi persons have been arrested in Iran on charges of crossing the border illegally, smuggling drugs and creating a law and order situation. However, they are hanged on the charges of insurgency after attacks on border security personnel and clashes with the security forces.



Wednesday, January 4, 2017

The Baluch in Iran are one group that is out voted, out of power, permanently















By M. Sarjov


The Baluch struggle is for an independent modern state, where the gender equality, religious freedom, rule of law, property right and individual right are guaranteed by the State.

For hundreds of years the world has been divided into patch work of states with the clear boundaries. 
Every piece of land belong to one or more groups of people and each human being supposedly belong to one of these entities, which are self-contained within a hard shell of language, culture, religion and tradition.  

European states were created as early as 1648 yet the sense of nation hood did not arise at the same time. Small European principalities united together to create centralised states with demarked borders instead of the previous peril frontiers. The new sovereign nation-states maintained armies and governments.

Nation builders created national culture by creating a single unified language for each nation from one of the local vernacular, standardised its spelling and grammar and taught it in schools throughout the new state.

But in (Persia) Iran’s case nation building started very late. The European created the modern state for Iranian (the Great game) Persian were not self-motivated to create a modern state.  They were as they are today much more interested to conquer their neighbours and to revitalise their mythical Persian empire, then wait for the Hidden Imam to reappears and announce the end of the world.

 The Nation builders in Iran tried and failed to assimilate the resilient Baluch and Kurd, The Iranian Shiite Turk have been the backbones of the Modern Iran, better educated than their Persian counterparts, have maintained their language as well as their vibrant Turkic culture and the Shiite Arab with fluency in Arabic, (Arabic is the language of religion), resisted and survived the Persian assimilation attempts, one state one culture, one language theory has failed in Iran. The Persian did what they could do, bullying the Baluch, Turk, Arab, Kurd, and levelled their culture, language as backward.

Centres of civilizations have always been Multicultural regions where people from diverse backgrounds meet and stimulate each other through dialogue. When two or more communities within a state see themselves as permanently divided and have different interests, then differences between them cannot easily resolves and good relations maintained through regular democratic means, since even in democratic government majority dominated group out voted minority group permanently out of power. The Baluch in Iran are one group that is out voted permanently.

The Persian chauvinism is not able or unwilling to understand the Baluch and others nationalities sentiments. By ignoring long standing issue of the Baluch right to self-determination such demand will not disappear but actually will accumulate. The policy makers who seek to hold Iran together failed and will fail to decentralise power from Tehran and transfer it to the provinces. Iran’s state structure is cemented by Shiite sect of Islam, the ethnic politics in Iran will undo the Shiite control over the non-Persian Shiite.

The causes of ethnic conflicts have always been the authoritarian rules; collapse of such rules make ethnic conflicts possible. The lid on ancient rivalries will take off, long suppressed grievances will be settled. Iran is the next outdated authoritarian Shiite caliph on its way out. The Iranian ethnic conflicts are not confined to one regime. The ethnics rivalries and conflicts are historical fact only temporarily supressed and managed. 

The Iranian opposition parties from liberal, left to central, those who believe in liberty, individual autonomy and rights to self-determination can minimise upcoming ethnic violence in Iran. The best course of action is to recognise and address ethnic problems early before violence and bloodshed erupt. The Persian have numbers of alternative to prevent ethnic conflicts. 

National right to self-determination

The national right to self-determination has been at the root of modern politic debates the academic definition of national self-determination are few and far between.

The Right to self-determination concept is associated with democracy, the principle that citizens must be governed only with their own consent. The Baluch in Iran are not governed by their consent and will not be able to do so as long as the Baluch remains as a part of Iran. The Baluch are the victims of the Persian subjugation. They have been protesting against prolonged suffering and violation of their basic rights to lives a dignified lives.

The Persian chauvinism and Shiite Apartheid have refused to share the state power and privileges, exploited the state resources while they economically deprived the Baluch from means to maintain good life in Iran. The Baluch as the Iranian citizens gaze at the State for security and economic prosperity. There is security and economic prosperity in Baluchistan but for non Baluch settler’s foreign investors. The Baluch have no security and the Iranian security agencies are engaged in promoting inner tribal fights within Baluchistan.

Liberation

The Baluch must win their independent in order to preserve their language, culture, tradition, economy and commitment to modernisation. A more democratic world cannot be created by transferring power to an imaginary world parliament or the United Nations, but only by giving people influence over the decision that effect their lives. The Baluch campaigner for independent Baluchistan should propose that the Independent Baluchistan is achievable by splitting Iran and giving The Baluch, Arab, Kurd, Turk, Persian control of their lands on basis of historical and cultural boundaries.
The principle of self-determination is supported as means of guaranteeing people right to control over the law by which their lives are regulated. The Baluch as the people have no representative in the Iranian government to represent their common interests. The Baluch national Right to self-determination is justifiable in Iran where there is an elected government but the Baluch are facing the Human Right violation, systematic economic deprivation and forceful removal from their ancestral home. 

In Iran people are free to vote but they are not free to stand to be elected or elect a candidate of their own to represent them in advisory council. The Guardian council select the candidate and then people are free to vote for a candidate selected for the people by the Guardian council. The Baluch in the western Baluchistan are aware of the fact that their vote do not change anything.


Conclusion

As consequence of denial of national right to self-determination there are many wars of liberation against apartheid regimes and states in the world. The authoritarian regime and artificial states with one or more nationalities are involved in internal or external wars.
 It is wrong to blame Nationalists for the violence which they bring since they have to react as victims of injustice. The world opinion favour the Right to self-determination as a solution. Today the Baluch are refusing to assimilate in to Persian- Shiite and demanding the Right to National self-determination. The Baluch struggle is for an independent modern state, where the gender equality, religious freedom, rule of law, property right and individual right are guaranteed by the State.

Appendix;

Nationalism is not a complete ideology in the same sense as communism, Islam, Christianity; it does not suggest as an action plan of universal scope. Nationalism only seek to justify their own group. Nationalism employs ideal of self-determination. Nationalism may be popular within the right, left, central, liberal and religious groups. Those who oppose the self-determination are really undemocratic and allies of Chauvinism.

Mehrab. D. Sarjov is a Baluch political activist based in London and campaign for an independent Baluchistan.  

Monday, January 2, 2017

The Baluch intellectual did not create the Nationalism in Baluchistan

What the Baluch demand from the Persian occupiers inside Baluchistan is to stop the colonisation, assimilation, of the Baluch in Baluchistan. Because their alien settlement in Baluchistan and assimilation policies are costly in term of blood and money on both side.

The modern Iran is a state created by the Shiite, for the Shiite, they are obsessed with the Persian history of distant past and claim to Persian myth. A small Shiite elite in Tehran decide for all Iranian. This Shiite elite failed to create free market economy and free mark of ideals.

The Shiite sect of Islam is the core glue that unite the Persian Shiite with non-Persian Shiite. The Shiite is the State religion and Persian is the State language and otherness is condemned. The state security, trade, bureaucracy controlled by Shiite, Persian dominated elite in Tehran.

There is a lack of common interest between the Persian, Baluch and Shiite and Sunni in Baluchistan. The state authority they imposed on the Baluch from Tehran has never been effective. The point which the Persian Shiite elite failed to understand or unwilling to accept is that the outsiders always resisted.

A respect for an alien cannot be guaranteed; even if one reduce the Area of disrespect it encounter. Tehran cannot impose loyalty upon the Baluch because the Persian conquered Baluchistan in 1928 and annexed Baluchistan into the Persia and the state authorities imposed upon the Baluch.

The Baluch sense is that they are understanding themselves not in unity with the Iranian but in division and uniqueness as a nation that do not share anything with the rest of Iranian population.

In the modern Iran, (for nearly 100 years), by liberty the Persian Shiite means initiative for Shiite and Persian not for all Iranian. By equality they means that only Shiite and Persian shall win such significance as it entitled by religion. The Baluch in Iranian occupied Baluchistan live as the servant of others.

Some groups among the Baluch have been arguing for self-rules and decentralisation of power in Iran. But majority of the Baluch believe that the Shiite Persian are not wise enough and experienced enough to rule over the secular minded Baluch in the western Baluchistan. It is the time for international community to recognise Baluchistan as an occupied land and respect the rights of National self-determination for the Baluch nation.

The most progressive people are those who capable of state building; because the state express people will to survive. People without state cannot contribute to the development of civilization and they would soon cease to be people. If the Baluch could not acquire a state of their own over course of time they will never be able to continue as a nation.
It is not realistic to maintain that Persian would be capable to absorb large non Persian (Turk Shiite, Arab Shiite, Kurd 70percent Sunni, Baluch 98 percent Sunni) national existence, they would become Persian or reduce their existences into unimportant.

The Baluch intellectual did not create the Nationalism in Baluchistan. By contrast, (Baluch, Arab, Turk, Kurd), nationalism have been phenomenon force in Iran. These nations inside Iran have their own cultural, linguistic boundaries, historical claim to the land they are residing, they are calling it home and they are ready to defend the home with all means from internal as well as external colonisation, their narratives are different from the state narrative. They are continuously supressed by Tehran’s totalitarian regime and Shiite Mullahs, communist and Persian centralist parties.

The Persian dominated opposition parties define democracy very narrowly to suit their need. They are rejecting the democratic principle of personal autonomy and right to self-determination for individual and groups. They have little time for democracy, rule of law and property rights. They seize land as they please and exploited resources from other people property as their predecessor have done.  

The Persian opposition are seeking to change mullah-cracy without sharing the privileges they have enjoyed through history. The totalitarianism and Shiite dominated politic is ingrained in the Iranian politic. The regime change will not bring the peace within Iran or the wide Middle East.
For a peace to prevail in the Middle East and the Persian to survival as a nation the world should recognise the Baluch and others rights to national self-determination and force Iran to recognise the Baluch, Arab, Kurd, Turk historical right to statehood.

The Persian dominated opposition alone would not succeed to bring about a regime change in Iran, by trying new route and risky bypass. Attempting to do so will only result in xenophobia. It is politically possible to denounce the Baluch and others Iranian nations, but the sequences of this manoeuvre should not be underrated. The Baluch right to independent Baluchistan is an historic fact. There is no reason to why the Baluch as a nation should be denied the state of their own.

Mehrab. D. Sarjov is a Baluch political activist based in London campaign for an independent Baluchistan and Human rights. 

Sunday, December 18, 2016

Support the campaign for Independent Baluchistan


Wherever you live become a representative for the campaign for an independent Baluchistan. Pro-Iranian federalist may tell you that “Iran is strong and the Baluch are weak therefore the Baluch cannot defeat the Iranian”. They tell people who have sympathy for an independent Baluchistan in private that the federalist is a step toward Independent Baluchistan.They are not telling the truth. 


They are saying the same to Iranian and other foreign pro-Iranian groups, we are not separatist.
 The federalists Iranian including the Baluch Federalist want to reform the Iranian constitution for a stronger Iran. The federalists are the Iranian’s safety valves to stop Iran from disintegrate into 6 or 7 independent states. 

Some country and interest groups assess them as a fast way for regime change in Iran. The Federalist and Mullahs demand is the Iranian constitution reform in which they could share power with Persian and Shiite.

 The Campaign for independent Baluchistan tell them and the world that all occupying powers are by definition weak when they face a hostile occupied nation and Iranian occupied forces in Baluchistan are not different.

The pro- Iran federalist (Mullah, ex-communists, Monarchist) Baluch are part of the Iranian elite who are justifying the Persian occupation of Baluchistan. The Baluch will not achieve their economy, prosperity inside Iran. The Baluch inside Iran will lose their language to Persian and the religion to Shiite. It is evidently clear, the Most sunny Mullah have supported the Shiite Tehran genocide in Syria. A slave is always slave mentally or physically.

Mehrab. D. Sarjov is a Baluch political activist based in London campaign for an independent Baluchistan.