Historically, Balochistan or Kalat, has never been a part of India.

By Asad Rahman
The political, economic, social and cultural discrimination that Balochistan's people are facing today is nothing new and has been going on since the very inception of Pakistan. This discrimination today has taken on even more sinister overtones leading to a situation similar to that which pertained in 1970-71 in respect of East Pakistan, now Bangladesh.
The fact is that it is not the Baloch that have not accepted suzerainty of Pakistan over them but it is the Pakistani establishment and state that has never accepted the Baloch as rightful, legal, patriotic citizens of Pakistan.The Baloch supported the movement for an independent Muslim state in the Indian subcontinent even before the 1940 resolution. Unfortunately our history books, establishment and governments have never recognised through publication of the real facts, nor appreciated the Baloch Contributions to the emergence of Pakistan as an independent state.
I, (a Punjabi), have lived for nine years, 1971 to 1980, amongst the most orthodox Baloch tribes, eating the same food, wearing the same clothes, sleeping in the same beddings, suffering the same illnesses, drinking the same unhygienic water, as the common Baloch. I have studied the language and read, write and speak it as fluently as a Marri or Bughti Baloch. I have come to love these people like my brothers and sisters for the respect, hospitality and honour that they have given me over the years and still do. The pathetic and abject poverty of the Baloch have compelled me to take up their just cause and demands to be treated as patriotic, legal, equal citizens of Pakistan. These demands are not only confined to Balochistan but are also representative of rural Sindh, NWFP especially the south, South Punjab and the Northern areas, which areas constitute approximately 75% of Pakistan's territory. The need for such a debate is being acutely felt today because of the dangerous political and economic conditions prevailing in Balochistan that are reinforcing the anti-state separatist forces which are spreading perceptions of ruthless exploitation by Punjabis, as a whole, amongst the common Baloch. Historically, Balochistan or Kalat, has never been a part of India. Of the early history of the state little or nothing is known. The first distinct account, which we have, is from Arrian, who narrates the march of Alexander through this region. In the 8th century, an army of the Caliphate traversed the country. The present dynasty was founded by Kambar, a leader of the mountain tribes. After various successes, the Kambarianis at length possessed themselves the sovereignty of a considerable portion of the fruitful plain of Gandava.
It was about this time that Nadir Shah advanced from Persia to the invasion of Hindustan, and the Khan of Kalat, who helped the Shah with men and money, was by a firman appointed "Beglar Begi" (Prince of Princes) of all Baloch tribes.On the death of Nadir Shah, the Khan of Kalat acknowledged the title of the King of Kabul, Ahmed Shah Durrani. In 1758, however, the Khan declared himself entirely independent, upon which Ahmed Shah dispatched a force against him under one of his ministers. This expedition terminated in a treaty of peace, by which the Khan agreed to furnish troops to assist the Kabul armies, and the Afghan King in return, agreed to pay cash allowance. From that time till 1839, when the British army advanced through the Bolan Pass to Afghanistan, Kalat was completely independent owing no allegiance to any authority in India or elsewhere. The British government in India never claimed the doctrine of paramountcy was applicable to its relations with Kalat; nor has the Khan ever admitted that the powers of paramountcy could be exercised against him and his government.
On the contrary, several representatives of the British colonial government described Kalat as a sovereign and independent state. In 1872, Sir WL Merewether, in charge of the British Government's relations with Kalat, wrote: "There cannot, in my opinion, be the least doubt of the course which should be followed with regard to Kalat, or Balochistan as it should be correctly termed.
His Highness the Khan is the de facto and de jure Ruler of that country. We have treaty engagements with him under which, he is bound to keep his subjects from injuring British territory or people, to protect trade etc. But the treaty is with him as ruler only, and under none of the engagements are we called upon to enter directly into the manner in which he carries on his government."Sir Bartle Frere, another recognised British authority on Kalat, held the same view. Dealing with the British government vis-a-vis Kalat, Sir Bartle wrote in 1876: "It was a cardinal rule to attempt no disintegration of the Khan of Kalat's sovereignty, whether nominal or real, over the Baloch tribes, but rather by every means in our power to uphold his authority.
The Khan was regarded as our independent ally, free to act as he pleased in internal affairs, but externally subordinate to the English government in all that could affect anything beyond his own borders. We dealt with Kalat as far as we could for Belgium and Switzerland."This policy was insisted upon by the government of India against the wishes of the local officers even during the years of anarchy and discord, which prevailed in Kalat till the conclusion of the treaty of 1876.Lord Salisbury, the then secretary of State for India, wrote as follows to the Governor General-in-Council: "Armed intervention would appear an unfriendly act towards a state with which our relations have, until recently been cordial, while it would probably entail a prolonged occupation of the country, and might involve ulterior results of a serious kind in other quarters.
His Majesty's Government trust that an early opportunity may be taken of again placing the relations between the Government of India and the Khan of Kalat on the friendly footing provided for by the Treaty of 1854, and thereby re-establish a position of affairs desirable in the interests of the British Government, and essential to the continued existence of Kalat as an independent state."
It is, however, no doubt true, that the Government of India Act, 1935, treats Kalat as an Indian state and provides representation for it in the Federal Legislature, but the state was never consulted in the drafting of the Act, nor was it a party to it in any manner. The territories of the Kalat State being outside the limits of the legislative authority of the British parliament, the Act could not be held binding on the state. Nevertheless, the Khan of Kalat lodged a protest against the provisions of the Act. In a personal letter to the Khan of Kalat, His Excellency the Crown Representative assured him that such reaffirmation was unnecessary and that His Excellency recognised the treaty of 1876 as fully valid in every respect, and that it would henceforth form the basis of the relations between the British Government and the Kalat State. The views of the Government of Kalat regarding the future position of the state at the time are as follows: In view of the forgoing considerations, the Government of Kalat maintains, and they are supported in this by the unanimous will of the subjects of the state: That the Kalat State is an independent sovereign state whose relations with the British Government are governed by the Treaty of 1876; that its Indian associations are merely due to its connections with the British Government; that Kalat being an independent state, the Khan, his government, and his people can never agree to Kalat being included in any form of Indian Union; and that with the termination of the treaty with the British Government, the Kalat State will revert to its pre-treaty position of complete independence and will be free to choose its own course for the future.The Khan and his government are, however, anxious to continue friendly and amicable relations with India and will always be glad to enter into an alliance with any government, which succeeds the British government in India on the basis of strictest reciprocity and mutual recognition of independence. This thus was the political position of Balochistan right up to the partition of the subcontinent. These treaties are all available for scrutiny in the Pakistan Archives, Balochistan Gazetteers and the British Museum of History.