Brief précis of the constitution history of kalat state,

The Baluch have been self differentiating and self defining ethno cultural 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 present day’s world. Baluch through history are an amalgam of two distinct groups Baluch and Brahui.

Humanity has always been governed by a system. Baluch is an ancient civilisation, the Baluch has gone through the tribal, cultivated settlers, feudal, caliph, Monarchy, division, occupation. One can not blame the past generation for the current generation’s failure. In the word of Anthony Gidden societies only exist in so far as they are created and recreated in our own actions as human beings.

The entire world was divided between monarchs; the nation should not deny their past because once upon a time they were ruled by monarchs. Some celebrate the past. At the end of the day people’s vote will count not the wishes of the individual tribal chiefs, or Mullahs. It would be in the Baluch nation’s advantage if the so called “activists” would have a positive approach. The historical Denial by so called “activists” may deprive Baluch nation from legitimate historic statehood, and Nationhood.  

Brief précis of the constitution history of kalat state,

The khan existed in kalat before the confederacy was established and the component tribes of the confederacy came in under his banner for their own benefit. The original the khan’s Ulus turned to cultivation and the independent nomads under sanders supplied the fighting men and were in a position to control the khan himself. The Wiser of the khans sought to bind sardars to them by grants of land in kalat proper, recognising the supreme importance of their military power which they and their tribes could provide.

In October 1926 Keyes submitted a most important note on constitutional aspect. In the course of this note he attempted to show that the tribal system was only a part of the khan state system which he describe, the warrior, and the worker, the khan tribes and cultivators of the khan’s lands according to keyes it was the cultivator of kachhi and of the lands above the passes who provided the khan with the resources  to retain the services of the nomad Baluch tribesmen it was the cultivator working the Comi Inam lands who freed the nomad tribesman for the services of the khan and it was the khan who brought the two elements together. This was the system of Nasir Khan the great and this was the system which Sir Robert Sendeman understood to be the constitution of Baluchistan.

Following the accession of Mahmud Khan we (British) had left the khan with little of the authority over the sardars to which he was entitled under the old constitution and which his predecessors had exercised until the time of our (British) intervention, while the position of the sardars under our (British) protection was one of an independence from the khan to which they had no historical or customary rights. He argued that we had whittled down the khan’s power vis-a-vis his sardars even more than we (British whittled down his khanate.

Keyes pointed out that Baluchistan is multiple federal states and not a simple confederacy. In both Sarawan and Jhalawn and in Kachhi, the khan was autocratic ruler,  and he added that the Niabats of Sarawan and Jhalawan including all the land irrigated by perennial water of two divisions, and that no tribal chief held there any land with a perennial source of irrigation except as a grantee and subject of the khan.

Magasi and rand tribes in Kachhi with their sardar in that area are revenue paying subject of the khan. In the Sarawan and Jhalawan he showed that many of the sardars own land as sardari, or private or family property with no feudal obligations, but that the chiefs and their tribesmen, while living there, these property are subject to the khan’s courts. In Sarawan and Jhalawan, in the areas of five tribes of Ulus the khan is autocratic ruler; in Kachhi he is something like a feudal over lord; while in the tribal territory he is head of a confederacy but even so hold a potion higher than the primus inter pares.

He argued the difference between the khan and sardar is therefore is not of degree but of kind. It was the khan alone who had to British government jurisdiction and power of administer of Bolan which almost exclusively tribal territory, the agreement ceding the land for Kandahar state railway, Mushkaf Bolan railway, the most part covering tribal territory, were made by the khan without the sardars....

 The well being of India and maintenance of peaceful developments of existing institutions in the frontier state Baluchistan, to countenance any attempt on the part of the khan to draw away from the constitution and set himself up as an autocratic ruler. In order words the necessities of frontiers defence required the obedience of the powerful sardars to the British Indian government; the rights and privilege of the khan of kalat were matter of less importance.

Colonel Flowden’s reference to the viceroy’s Durbar 1877 when the khan was not put in the special circle reserved for the feudatory princes of India but was told that he had been put in a special place set a part for himself as he occupied the position of a sovereign prince entirely independent of the British government with which he was connected only by his treaty engagements.

It seems that there can be no real doubt that colonel Key’s summing up of constitutional position of kalat was correct in its essentials. Baluchistan is a multiple federal state in a great part of which the khan is autocratic ruler. In the tribal areas the khan is clearly a something higher than primus inter pares and the restrictions by which he is bound in these areas are the result of more of practical than of constitutional considerations.

Note from the constitution history of kalat state,
M.Sarjov