Civilian government powerless to solve Balochistan’s problem, says Khan of Kalat Murtaza Ali ShahLONDON:
The UK-based self-exiled Khan of Kalat has categorically refused to become part of the democratic government’s efforts to address the security related and economic problems of Balochistan. Mir Suleman Daud Baloch, who is awaiting a decision on his asylum application, plans to move the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on the status of Kalat, which became part of Pakistan under an agreement signed on March 27, 1948 between Quaid-i-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah and the then Khan of Kalat Mir Ahmad Yar Khan.A news item in this newspaper three days ago said it was a positive sign that the Khan of Kalat has not yet moved the ICJ over the accusation that Pakistan has not fulfilled the promises it made at the time of signing the treaty but the real reason behind the delay is Khan of Kalat's inability to travel outside of Britain while the British government considers his appeal against permanent stay. Immigrations experts believe that the 35th Khan of Kalat, who has been seeking asylum since July 2007, will ultimately be granted asylum because of his profile and the on-going unrest in the restive province. It has become almost a standard procedure in the UK to refuse the asylum claims in the first phase no matter how serious the case but appeals with serious grounds of fear of persecution are ultimately allowed and Khan of Kalat's case falls in this bracket, an immigration expert told this correspondent. Speaking to the News, the Khan of Kalat said he was not interested in the government’s offers and said he was determined to move the international forums to seek attention towards the problems of Balcohistan. “I don’t need any offers from the present government. I came out of Pakistan on my own free will and will return when I want.“My return to Pakistan and becoming part of the so-called dialogue process in not the solution to problems my people are facing. “My people have given me a mandate and a duty to take their case to the ICJ and I am determined to stand by my people,” Khan of Kalat said in reference to a September 2006 grand Baloch jirga, convened after about 126 years, which recommended that a case should be in the ICJ against what it termed violation of agreements signed by the State of Kalat, the Crown of Britain and the government of Pakistan pertaining to sovereignty and rights of the Baloch people.The Khan of Kalat said that President Asif Ali Zardari had phoned him six month ago to return to Pakistan for negotiations but he told the president blankly that the approaches he was taking to address the Baloch issue were ineffective. “I told President Zaradri that Balochistan’s issue cannot be solved through all parties conferences, increasing the budgets, and making more hollow promises.“I told the president that he may be well-meaning but he was powerless to do anything on ground. The real power, he knows, lies elsewhere. If Zardari was powerful and independent in taking decisions, why would he go to the United Nations to seek justice for his wife Benazir Bhutto’s murder?”Refusing to be part of any efforts to settle the Baloch issue, the Khan of Kalat, who lives with his family in Cardiff, lay down only one condition to become part of the talks. “The talks have to be mediated by the United States of America, the United Kingdom and other European countries. “Accept that and we can talk further. There is no point for us anymore to get engaged with the powerless people. That option is off the table now. Sixty years of broken promises has broken my faith completely in the sincerity of Islamabad.”Answering a question, His Highness, as it states on his passport, said that Governor Zulfikar Magsi has said it on record that he is powerless and cannot promise any change to the status quo.
Friday, July 10, 2009
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
Obama Cannot Afford to Get Iran Wrong
His instincts so far have been pitch-perfect
by Robert D. Kaplan
Obama Cannot Afford to Get Iran Wrong
President Barack Obama has come under withering criticism from neoconservatives and liberal internationalists for not speaking out more quickly and forcefully in support of the pro-democracy demonstrators in Iran. But now that the initial crisis is past, and Teheran has settled in for a behind-the-scenes struggle among the Shiite clergy, it is apparent that Obama's instinct has been pitch-perfect.
The last time an American president was criticized for not coming out forcefully enough in support of pro-democracy demonstrators was twenty years ago, when George H. W. Bush took a publicly reticent stance as the Soviet Empire collapsed in Eastern Europe and the Baltic states. In A World Transformed, the 1998 memoir he coauthored with his national security advisor Brent Scowcroft, one of the finest and under-rated of political memoirs written in recent decades, Bush recalled that he felt it important to “step carefully in Poland and Hungary and … avoid aggravating the Soviets, whose military presence still loomed there.” If the U.S. had taken overt action to encourage democracy, he explained, “I understood that the pressure on Gorbachev from hard-liners to intervene would grow...there could be more Tiananmens."
In other words, he recognized that Ronald Reagan's aggressive policies had set history in Eastern Europe in motion, and that it was now his own task to slow it down – to allow liberal change to settle in with minimal bloodshed. Tiananmen was fresh in his memory—a bloody repression by another communist regime against its democratic opponents. His fear of instigating another such event governed his decisions in Europe.
Obama now faces a similar challenge.
History has been set in motion in Iran. Though only dozens have been killed so far, the possibility of hundreds or more dying in a bloody upheaval is not out of the question. One ayatollah has even called for executions. Obama's goal must be political change and liberation in Teheran with minimal bloodshed. And he simply cannot accomplish that by putting America's fingerprints all over the democracy movement there. How he handles this could mean the difference between a massive crackdown by a terror-promoting, radical regime (who would likely retain complete control for years to come), and a gradual behind-the-scenes transformation, as the clerisy moves delicately away from the "Death to America" mantra of previous decades. In that regard, like the elder Bush vis-à-vis Eastern Europe, the less Obama says about Iran these days the better. It's not about winning an argument, as some commentators appear to believe; it's about effecting change, indirectly, in a complex society half-a-world away.
The fact is that various scenarios are possible for Iran, and the United States must prepare for all of them by not rhetorically boxing itself in. It is very possible that the hardliners in Iran will win the immediate power struggle, and seek, months down the road, to engage the U.S. as a way to take some of the wind out of the sails of the democratic opposition. With a nuclear Iran a not-so-distant reality, America's national interest dictates that it set itself up properly for such a circumstance. If the democrats eventually win the power struggle, the U.S. will be in an optimum position in any case. It is the less-than-optimum scenario that the U.S. has to prepare for. Recall that the elder Bush's muted rhetoric did not harm the democracy movements in Eastern Europe one bit; in fact, it might have helped them, by reducing the threat of a Soviet military response.
Iran, because of its size, its well-educated population, its geographical logic - there is relatively little artificial about its frontiers - and its position straddling the oil-rich Caspian Sea and the oil-rich Persian Gulf, is the most powerful and influential nation in the Moslem world. It retains the ability to destabilize Iraq—and even a small shift in its foreign policy could promote stability in Lebanon or further Palestinian-Israeli peace talks. Obama cannot afford to get Iran wrong.
And he is not. His temperament can't be improved upon. In his Cairo speech, he talked in broad terms about liberal change in the Muslim world. That may have been a factor in the election in Lebanon in June, in which the pro-western anti-Hezbollah faction won. And who knows, it may also have helped spur the democracy demonstrations in Iran. But he has been careful not to insert himself into Iran’s domestic debate, except in the vaguest terms.
Iran will likely soon develop enough weapons-grade material to make a bomb, even as it may not eventually do so. Moreover, a few years hence, a nuclear Iran may be a very different ideological animal than the country we know today. Thus, the idea that the clock is ticking and someone - the U.S. or Israel - must bomb Iran now is simplistic. Vice President Joseph Biden’s remark over the weekend, on This Week With George Stephanopoulos, that Israel has Washington’s go-ahead to attack Iran was unwise and undisciplined. It is the only blemish in the Administration's performance thus far.
In a postscript to A World Transformed, Brent Scowcroft writes that he felt a sense of pride when the Soviet flag was lowered from the Kremlin one last time—pride in having helped the Soviet Union to reach a relatively peaceful dissolution, even as he admits that Mikhail Gorbachev deserved most of the credit. When it comes to Iran, at the rate Obama is going—treading carefully, helping liberal-minded Iranians where we can (in the shadows mostly), he may one day be able to feel a similar degree of accomplishment.
Robert D. Kaplan is a national correspondent for The Atlantic and a senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security, in Washington, D.C.
by Robert D. Kaplan
Obama Cannot Afford to Get Iran Wrong
President Barack Obama has come under withering criticism from neoconservatives and liberal internationalists for not speaking out more quickly and forcefully in support of the pro-democracy demonstrators in Iran. But now that the initial crisis is past, and Teheran has settled in for a behind-the-scenes struggle among the Shiite clergy, it is apparent that Obama's instinct has been pitch-perfect.
The last time an American president was criticized for not coming out forcefully enough in support of pro-democracy demonstrators was twenty years ago, when George H. W. Bush took a publicly reticent stance as the Soviet Empire collapsed in Eastern Europe and the Baltic states. In A World Transformed, the 1998 memoir he coauthored with his national security advisor Brent Scowcroft, one of the finest and under-rated of political memoirs written in recent decades, Bush recalled that he felt it important to “step carefully in Poland and Hungary and … avoid aggravating the Soviets, whose military presence still loomed there.” If the U.S. had taken overt action to encourage democracy, he explained, “I understood that the pressure on Gorbachev from hard-liners to intervene would grow...there could be more Tiananmens."
In other words, he recognized that Ronald Reagan's aggressive policies had set history in Eastern Europe in motion, and that it was now his own task to slow it down – to allow liberal change to settle in with minimal bloodshed. Tiananmen was fresh in his memory—a bloody repression by another communist regime against its democratic opponents. His fear of instigating another such event governed his decisions in Europe.
Obama now faces a similar challenge.
History has been set in motion in Iran. Though only dozens have been killed so far, the possibility of hundreds or more dying in a bloody upheaval is not out of the question. One ayatollah has even called for executions. Obama's goal must be political change and liberation in Teheran with minimal bloodshed. And he simply cannot accomplish that by putting America's fingerprints all over the democracy movement there. How he handles this could mean the difference between a massive crackdown by a terror-promoting, radical regime (who would likely retain complete control for years to come), and a gradual behind-the-scenes transformation, as the clerisy moves delicately away from the "Death to America" mantra of previous decades. In that regard, like the elder Bush vis-à-vis Eastern Europe, the less Obama says about Iran these days the better. It's not about winning an argument, as some commentators appear to believe; it's about effecting change, indirectly, in a complex society half-a-world away.
The fact is that various scenarios are possible for Iran, and the United States must prepare for all of them by not rhetorically boxing itself in. It is very possible that the hardliners in Iran will win the immediate power struggle, and seek, months down the road, to engage the U.S. as a way to take some of the wind out of the sails of the democratic opposition. With a nuclear Iran a not-so-distant reality, America's national interest dictates that it set itself up properly for such a circumstance. If the democrats eventually win the power struggle, the U.S. will be in an optimum position in any case. It is the less-than-optimum scenario that the U.S. has to prepare for. Recall that the elder Bush's muted rhetoric did not harm the democracy movements in Eastern Europe one bit; in fact, it might have helped them, by reducing the threat of a Soviet military response.
Iran, because of its size, its well-educated population, its geographical logic - there is relatively little artificial about its frontiers - and its position straddling the oil-rich Caspian Sea and the oil-rich Persian Gulf, is the most powerful and influential nation in the Moslem world. It retains the ability to destabilize Iraq—and even a small shift in its foreign policy could promote stability in Lebanon or further Palestinian-Israeli peace talks. Obama cannot afford to get Iran wrong.
And he is not. His temperament can't be improved upon. In his Cairo speech, he talked in broad terms about liberal change in the Muslim world. That may have been a factor in the election in Lebanon in June, in which the pro-western anti-Hezbollah faction won. And who knows, it may also have helped spur the democracy demonstrations in Iran. But he has been careful not to insert himself into Iran’s domestic debate, except in the vaguest terms.
Iran will likely soon develop enough weapons-grade material to make a bomb, even as it may not eventually do so. Moreover, a few years hence, a nuclear Iran may be a very different ideological animal than the country we know today. Thus, the idea that the clock is ticking and someone - the U.S. or Israel - must bomb Iran now is simplistic. Vice President Joseph Biden’s remark over the weekend, on This Week With George Stephanopoulos, that Israel has Washington’s go-ahead to attack Iran was unwise and undisciplined. It is the only blemish in the Administration's performance thus far.
In a postscript to A World Transformed, Brent Scowcroft writes that he felt a sense of pride when the Soviet flag was lowered from the Kremlin one last time—pride in having helped the Soviet Union to reach a relatively peaceful dissolution, even as he admits that Mikhail Gorbachev deserved most of the credit. When it comes to Iran, at the rate Obama is going—treading carefully, helping liberal-minded Iranians where we can (in the shadows mostly), he may one day be able to feel a similar degree of accomplishment.
Robert D. Kaplan is a national correspondent for The Atlantic and a senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security, in Washington, D.C.
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Self preservation as the fundamental value,
Self preservation as the fundamental value,
Everyone values his or her life, seeks to extend it. We generally fear death. The Idea of self is tied up in our choices; what we invest materially and spiritually. What we value is the conservation of the valuing; that which specifies what we desire to be. The life of each individual has preeminent value to that person since all other values, independent of beliefs about immortality, depend upon continued life. Most people are willing to shorten their life expectancies in return for goods principle they hold dear, and commitments they have made. Placing a person involuntarily at risk, such as in the military draft is justified as a necessary sacrifice for the preservation of the lives of other members of the community. We remove ourselves from the state of nature to secure our rights. Our obligations often precede our promises, as opposed to being derived from them. Since no one asks to be born, our obligations to our parents never rest entirely on promises we have made. (JOHN LOCKE)
Equality;
R.H. Tawney, “while they differ profoundly as individuals capacity and character, they are equally entitled as human beings to consideration and respect, and that the well being of a society is likely to be increased if it so plans its organization that, whether their powers are great or small, all its members may be equally enabled to make the best of such powers as they may possess.”
The ideas of equality of respect connect in a powerful way with that of self preservation. For whatever I require on my own behalf about the construction and perseveration of my own autonomy applies, if I accept the idea of equality of respect, with similar considerations on the part of others. The idea of the value of one’s person autonomy rests on the same footing as the value of the autonomy of all. The preservation of oneself and the preservation of others are of equal moral worth wherever they may be.
There is no priority among the rights, all rights must be achieved protected for a society to be just and development to be successful. Government is the ultimate guarantor of the rights. It is the duty of each person to respect the rights of all others, supported and directed by civil society. It is individuals who have the duties in the first place. It is the duty of government to see that these obligations are discharged by those with in its borders toward others within its borders. It is the duty of other governments and global civil society to assist those governments that cannot, and to sanction those governments which do not discharge the most fundamental obligations.
Duties;
1. All persons have obligations to respect the basic rights of all other persons.
2. Governments have default obligations to enforce themselves the obligations of individuals when individuals fail to discharge them.
3. The international community has the default obligations to enforce these obligations when nations fail to discharge them.
Everyone values his or her life, seeks to extend it. We generally fear death. The Idea of self is tied up in our choices; what we invest materially and spiritually. What we value is the conservation of the valuing; that which specifies what we desire to be. The life of each individual has preeminent value to that person since all other values, independent of beliefs about immortality, depend upon continued life. Most people are willing to shorten their life expectancies in return for goods principle they hold dear, and commitments they have made. Placing a person involuntarily at risk, such as in the military draft is justified as a necessary sacrifice for the preservation of the lives of other members of the community. We remove ourselves from the state of nature to secure our rights. Our obligations often precede our promises, as opposed to being derived from them. Since no one asks to be born, our obligations to our parents never rest entirely on promises we have made. (JOHN LOCKE)
Equality;
R.H. Tawney, “while they differ profoundly as individuals capacity and character, they are equally entitled as human beings to consideration and respect, and that the well being of a society is likely to be increased if it so plans its organization that, whether their powers are great or small, all its members may be equally enabled to make the best of such powers as they may possess.”
The ideas of equality of respect connect in a powerful way with that of self preservation. For whatever I require on my own behalf about the construction and perseveration of my own autonomy applies, if I accept the idea of equality of respect, with similar considerations on the part of others. The idea of the value of one’s person autonomy rests on the same footing as the value of the autonomy of all. The preservation of oneself and the preservation of others are of equal moral worth wherever they may be.
There is no priority among the rights, all rights must be achieved protected for a society to be just and development to be successful. Government is the ultimate guarantor of the rights. It is the duty of each person to respect the rights of all others, supported and directed by civil society. It is individuals who have the duties in the first place. It is the duty of government to see that these obligations are discharged by those with in its borders toward others within its borders. It is the duty of other governments and global civil society to assist those governments that cannot, and to sanction those governments which do not discharge the most fundamental obligations.
Duties;
1. All persons have obligations to respect the basic rights of all other persons.
2. Governments have default obligations to enforce themselves the obligations of individuals when individuals fail to discharge them.
3. The international community has the default obligations to enforce these obligations when nations fail to discharge them.
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Modernity;
Modernity;
1. In Baluch society, literacy is confined to a small percentage of the population. Indigenous language is not promoted in state schools. Those who have educated in compacted state language are unable to engage in semantic work and context-free communication.
2. Where as in the modern states language and culture became the cement for the unified societies, one based on uprooted traditionalized individuals who had to be integrated into nation and only acceptable identity is citizenship based upon language and culture.
3. Therefore nationalism must erode traditional Baluch societies, and take language and culture as the sole basis for identity. In modern society we are all citizens and must be mass educated in the standardized public education system by the state.
4. Modernization can divide the region in developed and undeveloped states. It also divides the populations; urban city dweller, and uprooted peasant, and small land owners, who are increasingly excluded from urban resources. Now baloch are excluded from urban resources, (education, health, housing, jobs) do not share culture, language, colour of their skin with those controlling the resources here ethnic rivalry have ensued.
5. If the Baluch have shared language and culture with the Persian and Pakistanis the ensuing discontents would have been a class conflict. In these circumstances Baluch may attempt to see it as a class conflict, which it is not, it is ethnic conflict collective denial by Iranian and Pakistan to Baluch nation collectively.
6. Communist parties in Iran and Pakistan have argued that the Baluch exclusion from resources is the class conflict, and they mobilized large number of supporters to the extent that communist parties are stronger among the Baluch population in Pakistan than the religious parties. Communist parties in Iranian Baluchistan also have numerous supporters.
7. Baluch survived pre-modern period there was no need for nationalism in pre-modern societies. Agrarian and artisan Baluch were ruled by Khan or Sardar who may not have a shared culture with the great masses that worked and paid taxes. The traditional ruler did not have large bureaucracy.
8. There would be no Baluch nor Baluchistan if the Baluch are not united. The Baluch are subdivided into dialect, region, tradition and their tribal grievances could never take national form. Baluch do not have high culture, Baluch lack literate and standard public culture supported by specialists and public education.
9. Uncultivated culture is characterized of pre-modern societies, which could not survive modernity, they had to be turned into high cultures or they would perish. Nation and nationalism are necessary and functional for modernity. Nations are modern phenomenon nothing before them matters.
10. Nations destinies are not chosen, men do not need nationalities. It is modern time that needs nations and nationality looks natural. Faced with the administration and great armies of Iran and Pakistan Baluch are helpless. Baluch have no gun, no wealth, and no skills to match these armies. But Baluch have one thing that is people that is their only commodity. They must mobilize people and invite them into history, write invitation card in Baluchi language and culture and channel their sentiments into national resistances.
11. Baluch nationalism must remember that strong Pakistan nationalist will destroy Baluch nationalism; Iranian nationalist will destroy Baluch identity in Iran for ever. It is possible Baluch cannot resist Persian onslaught forever they have already given in to the Persian superiority. Persian have the power to disorient the Baluch and ultimately destroy them, Baluch in Pakistan are not in superior position they are divided into tribal rivalry.
Durkheim, once born, have a life of their own.
Baluch must have a life of its own.
M.sarjov
1. In Baluch society, literacy is confined to a small percentage of the population. Indigenous language is not promoted in state schools. Those who have educated in compacted state language are unable to engage in semantic work and context-free communication.
2. Where as in the modern states language and culture became the cement for the unified societies, one based on uprooted traditionalized individuals who had to be integrated into nation and only acceptable identity is citizenship based upon language and culture.
3. Therefore nationalism must erode traditional Baluch societies, and take language and culture as the sole basis for identity. In modern society we are all citizens and must be mass educated in the standardized public education system by the state.
4. Modernization can divide the region in developed and undeveloped states. It also divides the populations; urban city dweller, and uprooted peasant, and small land owners, who are increasingly excluded from urban resources. Now baloch are excluded from urban resources, (education, health, housing, jobs) do not share culture, language, colour of their skin with those controlling the resources here ethnic rivalry have ensued.
5. If the Baluch have shared language and culture with the Persian and Pakistanis the ensuing discontents would have been a class conflict. In these circumstances Baluch may attempt to see it as a class conflict, which it is not, it is ethnic conflict collective denial by Iranian and Pakistan to Baluch nation collectively.
6. Communist parties in Iran and Pakistan have argued that the Baluch exclusion from resources is the class conflict, and they mobilized large number of supporters to the extent that communist parties are stronger among the Baluch population in Pakistan than the religious parties. Communist parties in Iranian Baluchistan also have numerous supporters.
7. Baluch survived pre-modern period there was no need for nationalism in pre-modern societies. Agrarian and artisan Baluch were ruled by Khan or Sardar who may not have a shared culture with the great masses that worked and paid taxes. The traditional ruler did not have large bureaucracy.
8. There would be no Baluch nor Baluchistan if the Baluch are not united. The Baluch are subdivided into dialect, region, tradition and their tribal grievances could never take national form. Baluch do not have high culture, Baluch lack literate and standard public culture supported by specialists and public education.
9. Uncultivated culture is characterized of pre-modern societies, which could not survive modernity, they had to be turned into high cultures or they would perish. Nation and nationalism are necessary and functional for modernity. Nations are modern phenomenon nothing before them matters.
10. Nations destinies are not chosen, men do not need nationalities. It is modern time that needs nations and nationality looks natural. Faced with the administration and great armies of Iran and Pakistan Baluch are helpless. Baluch have no gun, no wealth, and no skills to match these armies. But Baluch have one thing that is people that is their only commodity. They must mobilize people and invite them into history, write invitation card in Baluchi language and culture and channel their sentiments into national resistances.
11. Baluch nationalism must remember that strong Pakistan nationalist will destroy Baluch nationalism; Iranian nationalist will destroy Baluch identity in Iran for ever. It is possible Baluch cannot resist Persian onslaught forever they have already given in to the Persian superiority. Persian have the power to disorient the Baluch and ultimately destroy them, Baluch in Pakistan are not in superior position they are divided into tribal rivalry.
Durkheim, once born, have a life of their own.
Baluch must have a life of its own.
M.sarjov
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Al Qaeda says it would use Pakistan’s nukes
We expect that the Pakistan Army would be defeated (in Swat) ... and that would be its end everywhere, God willing,’ said Mustafa Abu al Yazid (pictured above), the leader of Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. - Reuters photo
DUBAI: If it were in a position to do so, Al Qaeda would use Pakistan’s nuclear weapons in its fight against the United States, a top leader of the group said in remarks aired on Sunday.
‘God willing, the nuclear weapons will not fall into the hands of the Americans and the mujahideen would take them and use them against the Americans,’ Mustafa Abu al Yazid, the leader of Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, said in an interview with Al Jazeera television.
Abu al Yazid was responding to a question about fears that US would seize control over Pakistan’s nuclear weapons in case Islamists came close to doing so.
‘We expect that the Pakistan Army would be defeated (in Swat) ... and that would be its end everywhere, God willing.’—AFP
DUBAI: If it were in a position to do so, Al Qaeda would use Pakistan’s nuclear weapons in its fight against the United States, a top leader of the group said in remarks aired on Sunday.
‘God willing, the nuclear weapons will not fall into the hands of the Americans and the mujahideen would take them and use them against the Americans,’ Mustafa Abu al Yazid, the leader of Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, said in an interview with Al Jazeera television.
Abu al Yazid was responding to a question about fears that US would seize control over Pakistan’s nuclear weapons in case Islamists came close to doing so.
‘We expect that the Pakistan Army would be defeated (in Swat) ... and that would be its end everywhere, God willing.’—AFP
Thursday, June 18, 2009
Baluch as a nation have no future in Pakistan
At the dying days of British Empire three states declared independence; India, Pakistan, and Baluchistan. Baluchistan independence was short lived, Pakistan invaded Baluchistan.
Pakistan was created by Muslim elite who manipulated Islamic symbolic resources in order to mobilise the Muslim of north India and Bengal. It was an instrumentalist approach applied to create Pakistan.
Muslim elite persuaded Umma by seeking the greater autonomy for the Muslim in united provinces and Bengal. United provinces never became a part of Pakistan or Umma. Bengal had joined the Umma and Pakistan, but soon seceded from Pakistan. Bengali soon realised that a state needs more than a shared religion to survive. Islam is divided in many sects; each sect hates the other to the extent that they are willing to eliminate each other.
The Baluchistan national party has been influenced by the MQM and PPP. The Baluchistan national party is elite’s party. Their demand is more power to administrate their province and more money to spend. They have found themselves in situation that their domination on Baluch society has been challenged by the separatist movement. They cannot reject the separatist; if they reject the separatist Ideology, Baluch may reject them. They are playing a wait and see game for the moment. Their biggest worry is that they have used the nationalist slogan in the past. They are wages earners; Sardars receive grants from central government to maintain their status. They are not sure if separatists have external support. They are opportunistic if they realise that the separatist have external support and resources it would not take them long to change sides. They are not willing to risk what they have been getting from Pakistan. They have used the nationalist slogan in order to secure better jobs and more funds for themselves. They are losing credibility to coordinate the diverse interests of social groups and legitimise their actions. The so called Baluchistan National Parties failed to argue that there exists a nation with an explicit and peculiar character, that its interest and values take priority over all others and that the Baluchistan must be independent. Self denying approach to the Baluchistan independent by Baluchistan national parties will legitimise the Punjabi rules on Baluchistan. Baluch as a nation have no future in Pakistan. Baluch National parties are putting their parties interest first and the Baluch interest the second.
M.Sarjov
Pakistan was created by Muslim elite who manipulated Islamic symbolic resources in order to mobilise the Muslim of north India and Bengal. It was an instrumentalist approach applied to create Pakistan.
Muslim elite persuaded Umma by seeking the greater autonomy for the Muslim in united provinces and Bengal. United provinces never became a part of Pakistan or Umma. Bengal had joined the Umma and Pakistan, but soon seceded from Pakistan. Bengali soon realised that a state needs more than a shared religion to survive. Islam is divided in many sects; each sect hates the other to the extent that they are willing to eliminate each other.
The Baluchistan national party has been influenced by the MQM and PPP. The Baluchistan national party is elite’s party. Their demand is more power to administrate their province and more money to spend. They have found themselves in situation that their domination on Baluch society has been challenged by the separatist movement. They cannot reject the separatist; if they reject the separatist Ideology, Baluch may reject them. They are playing a wait and see game for the moment. Their biggest worry is that they have used the nationalist slogan in the past. They are wages earners; Sardars receive grants from central government to maintain their status. They are not sure if separatists have external support. They are opportunistic if they realise that the separatist have external support and resources it would not take them long to change sides. They are not willing to risk what they have been getting from Pakistan. They have used the nationalist slogan in order to secure better jobs and more funds for themselves. They are losing credibility to coordinate the diverse interests of social groups and legitimise their actions. The so called Baluchistan National Parties failed to argue that there exists a nation with an explicit and peculiar character, that its interest and values take priority over all others and that the Baluchistan must be independent. Self denying approach to the Baluchistan independent by Baluchistan national parties will legitimise the Punjabi rules on Baluchistan. Baluch as a nation have no future in Pakistan. Baluch National parties are putting their parties interest first and the Baluch interest the second.
M.Sarjov
Thursday, June 11, 2009
His Highness Suleman Daud Baluch,
Khan of Kalat 8th June 2009
I would like to express my opinion on the continuity of the Baluch Nation and it's part in the future of Southern Central Asia. The Baluch have been and always will be part of the soil of this land. Our blood has paid for the air above and the ground beneath the territories of all the Baluch speaking people in Iran, Pakistan and Afghanistan. This is an undeniable fact.During the time and collapse of the Indian Empire, controlled by the former colonising power, the British, the People of my country were placed against their will, into the hands of the artificially created boundaries of the Goldsmith and Durrand lines between Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iran. Regardless of the state of affairs that exist and the tensions which have festered between these sovereign nations, the fact remains that the Baluch are an integral part of the region.History shows us that those who ignore the Baluch nation do so at their peril. It is a demonstrable fact that without peace and stability in Baluchistan and security and the pursuit of happiness for the all people of this region, governed by a just and secular legislative counsel, all those who are the neighbours of the Baluch will suffer to some degree, the> same fate as that of Baluch. My message to you all is a message of hope. Sooner or later, all those> antagonistic parties who surround our borders or take part in the New Great Game will realise that their own security, happiness and future are> dependant on the same things, and that the Baluch must play a integral and full participating role in achieving those goals. Any resolution without the Baluch is no resolution at all. The Baluch should sit at the same table as all other participants in the struggle for peace and freedom. The Baluch have long been treated as the sand in the engine of the region. Prosperity for the region will only come about when it is accepted that the Baluch Nation, it's people and resources are the lubricant in an> otherwise diverse, multi ethnic, religious and socio-economic land. Let no one believe that the Baluch, wherever they lay their heads, are not one people. History and terrible injustices have lead to the fragmentation of Baluchistan. This however we must believe, is a temporary situation. All Baluch are brothers, not cousins, nor friends nor acquaintances but brothers. One heart, one mind, one soul. Those that do not understand this will surely be punished for their actions if they transgress against any part of the Motherland. At the present time I find myself marooned far from home, away from my beloved Motherland, by people who do not understand what is is to be Baluch. We are a proud and persistent people, we have courage and a tenacity that others fail to comprehend. I long for my home but was given a task to complete on behalf of all my people. I could not refuse even if it meant the loss of my liberty and separation from people I love. I herewith promise that. 'I will prevail in my duty in bringing the plight of ALL the Baluch people to the attention of the International Community'. A nation which opposes this mission cannot justifiably call itself a freedom loving democracy and I hereby call upon those searching for justice to come to the aid of my people.
Baluchistan Zindabad.
Khan of Kalat 8th June 2009
I would like to express my opinion on the continuity of the Baluch Nation and it's part in the future of Southern Central Asia. The Baluch have been and always will be part of the soil of this land. Our blood has paid for the air above and the ground beneath the territories of all the Baluch speaking people in Iran, Pakistan and Afghanistan. This is an undeniable fact.During the time and collapse of the Indian Empire, controlled by the former colonising power, the British, the People of my country were placed against their will, into the hands of the artificially created boundaries of the Goldsmith and Durrand lines between Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iran. Regardless of the state of affairs that exist and the tensions which have festered between these sovereign nations, the fact remains that the Baluch are an integral part of the region.History shows us that those who ignore the Baluch nation do so at their peril. It is a demonstrable fact that without peace and stability in Baluchistan and security and the pursuit of happiness for the all people of this region, governed by a just and secular legislative counsel, all those who are the neighbours of the Baluch will suffer to some degree, the> same fate as that of Baluch. My message to you all is a message of hope. Sooner or later, all those> antagonistic parties who surround our borders or take part in the New Great Game will realise that their own security, happiness and future are> dependant on the same things, and that the Baluch must play a integral and full participating role in achieving those goals. Any resolution without the Baluch is no resolution at all. The Baluch should sit at the same table as all other participants in the struggle for peace and freedom. The Baluch have long been treated as the sand in the engine of the region. Prosperity for the region will only come about when it is accepted that the Baluch Nation, it's people and resources are the lubricant in an> otherwise diverse, multi ethnic, religious and socio-economic land. Let no one believe that the Baluch, wherever they lay their heads, are not one people. History and terrible injustices have lead to the fragmentation of Baluchistan. This however we must believe, is a temporary situation. All Baluch are brothers, not cousins, nor friends nor acquaintances but brothers. One heart, one mind, one soul. Those that do not understand this will surely be punished for their actions if they transgress against any part of the Motherland. At the present time I find myself marooned far from home, away from my beloved Motherland, by people who do not understand what is is to be Baluch. We are a proud and persistent people, we have courage and a tenacity that others fail to comprehend. I long for my home but was given a task to complete on behalf of all my people. I could not refuse even if it meant the loss of my liberty and separation from people I love. I herewith promise that. 'I will prevail in my duty in bringing the plight of ALL the Baluch people to the attention of the International Community'. A nation which opposes this mission cannot justifiably call itself a freedom loving democracy and I hereby call upon those searching for justice to come to the aid of my people.
Baluchistan Zindabad.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
