sarjau

ndependence for Balochistan backed by the USA?

2012-02-19T01:54:00.000-08:00

ndependence for Balochistan backed by the USA?

The genocide in Balochistan committed by the Pakistani Army is finally coming to light. Independence is a matter of time!

News Report
WASHINGTON: A resolution moved by a group of US Congressmen calling for right to self-determination for the Baloch people has driven Pakistan to hysteria, with its leaders from the Prime Minister down questioning Washington’s commitment to the country’s sovereignty.
Following a Congressional hearing last week on the human rights situation in Balochistan, the Obama administration had assured Islamabad that it is committed to the country’s unity and integrity, but suspicion runs deep in Pakistan that Washington is intent on fingering the country on account of its covert support for terrorists.
Some hardline American analysts have suggested that the Washington help the Baloch break away from the federation so that American and Nato forces can have unfettered access to landlocked Afghanistan, given how Pakistan has been holding the US to ransom.
While the hearing itself had caused much disquiet in Islamabad and pushed an angry Pakistan into lodging formal protests, the latest resolution has driven its establishment to hysteria and distraction. Pakistan’s prime minister Yousef Raza Gilani condemned the resolution as a move to undermine the country’s sovereignty, and the Pakistani foreign office and the embassy in Washington took exception to it, saying it was against the “very fundamentals of US-Pakistan relations.”
Politics behind the resolution: Introduced by California Republican Dana Rohrabacher and co-sponsored by two other Republican Congressmen Louie Gohmert (Texas) and Steve King(Iowa), the House Concurrent Resolution says that the Baluchi nation has a “historic right to self-determination.”
Stating that Baluchistan is currently divided between Pakistan, Iran, and Afghanistan with no sovereign rights of its own, the resolution explains that “in Pakistan especially, the Baluchi people are subjected to violence and extrajudicial killing,” and therefore, the Baluchi people “have the right to self-determination and to their own sovereign country; and they should be afforded the opportunity to choose their own status.”
“The Baluchi, like other nations of people, have an innate right to self-determination,” Congressman Rohrabacher said in a statement. “The political and ethnic discrimination they suffer is tragic and made more so because America is financing and selling arms to their oppressors in Islamabad.”
The statement explained that historically Baluchistan was an independently governed entity known as the Baluch Khanate of Kalat which came to an end after invasions from both British and Persian armies. An attempt to regain independence in 1947 was crushed by an invasion by Pakistan.
“Today the Baluchistan province of Pakistan is rich in natural resources but has been subjugated and exploited by Punjabi and Pashtun elites in Islamabad, leaving Baluchistan the country’s poorest province,” it said.
A maverick lawmaker from California, Rohrabacher is not new to such controversies, having variously dallied with Khalistani and Kashmiri separatists previously when was a fan of the Pakistan and US-sponsored mujahedin as they drove the Soviets out of Afghanistan. But their transformation into today’s anti-US Taliban, and Pakistan’s support for the most toxic terrorists emerging from that movement, has moved him from a pro-Islamabad position (he himself says he was Pakistan’s “best friend”) to an ardent India supporter. He now openly advocates Washington ditching Islamabad for New Delhi.
In fact, the scuttlebutt in town is that Rohrabacher wants to “stick it to the Pakistanis” for their support of terrorism, sheltering of Osama bin Laden, and harassment of US forces. Two days before the Balochistan resolution, the Congressman introduced a separate bill in the House seeking a US citizenship and a medal for Dr Shakeel Afridi, a Pakistani physician who helped the CIA nail Osama bin Laden.
“We are trying to honor him because he helped bring the man responsible for killing nearly 3,000 Americans to justice,” Rohrabacher said. “He did so at a great personal risk. He deserves our deepest gratitude.” Dr Afridi is being held by the ISI and Washington has officially demanded that he be freed.
The two developments, along with the growing presence of Baloch separatists and their lobbying efforts in Washington, has driven Pakistan, already paranoid about U.S intent, quite crazy. On Saturday, the Nation newspaper, the most virulent among the country’s English dailies, carried a lead story under the headline “America again stabs Pakistan in the back.”
“Crossing the limits that apply to the international relations barring all states from interfering in the internal matters of other sovereign states, the US once again stabbed its terror-war ‘ally’ in the back by introducing a resolution in Congress calling for ‘independence’ of Balochistan,” the lead read, making no distinction between the US legislature and the administration.
End of Report
Balochistan Zindabad !!!

Tags: Independence for Balochistan backed by the USA?, Mark Ulyseas

Rep. Rohrabacher Introduces Bill Recognizing Baluchistan’s Right to Self-Determination

2012-02-17T12:24:00.000-08:00

PRESS RELEASE

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

February 17, 2012

Contact: Tara Setmayer

202-225-2415

Rep. Rohrabacher Introduces Bill Recognizing Baluchistan’s Right to Self-Determination

Washington, D.C. – Today, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) introduced a House Concurrent Resolution that the Baluchi nation has a historic right to self-determination. Baluchistan is currently divided between Pakistan, Iran, and Afghanistan with no sovereign rights of its own. In Pakistan especially, the Baluchi people are subjected to violence and extrajudicial killing. The bill states that the Baluchi people “have the right to self-determination and to their own sovereign country; and they should be afforded the opportunity to choose their own status.”

“The Baluchi, like other nations of people, have an innate right to self-determination,” says Rohrabacher. “The political and ethnic discrimination they suffer is tragic and made more so because America is financing and selling arms to their oppressors in Islamabad.”

Historically Baluchistan was an independently governed entity known as the Baluch Khanate of Kalat which came to an end after invasions from both British and Persian armies. An attempt to regain independence in 1947 was crushed by an invasion by Pakistan. Today the Baluchistan province of Pakistan is rich in natural resources but has been subjugated and exploited by Punjabi and Pashtun elites in Islamabad, leaving Baluchistan the country’s poorest province.

Reps. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) and Steve King (R-IA) have also signed on as original co-sponsors of the bill.

Rep. Rohrabacher is Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations.

###

ATTACHMENT

112TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. ____

Expressing the sense of Congress that the people of Baluchistan, currently

divided between Pakistan, Iran, and Afghanistan, have the right

to self-determination and to their own sovereign country.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Mr. ROHRABACHER submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was

referred to the Committee on _____________________________

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION
Expressing the sense of Congress that the people of Baluchistan,

currently divided between Pakistan, Iran, and

Afghanistan, have the right to self-determination

and to their own sovereign country.

Whereas the people of Baluchistan have maintained a proud

and distinctive national, cultural, and religious identity

dating back to ancient times;

Whereas in 1666, the Baluch Khanate of Kalat was founded

which functioned as an independent, sovereign country;

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:15 Feb 16, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6300 C:\OCUME~1\KMAMAR~1\APPLIC~1\SOFTQUAD\XMETAL\5.5\GEN\C\ROHRAB~1.XML

Whereas in the 19th century, the Baluch people were conquered

and divided by the imperialist expansion of Persia

(Iran) and the British Empire;

Whereas on August 15, 1947, the Khan of Kalat declared

independence, only to have Baluch aspirations crushed by

an invasion by Pakistan in April 1948 followed by 2

years of a bloody campaign to stamp out popular resistance;

Whereas revolts in 1958, 1973, and 2005 indicate continued

popular discontent against rule by Islamabad, and the

plunder of its vast natural wealth while Baluchistan remains

the poorest province in Pakistan;

Whereas a popular insurgency is also under way in Sistan-

Baluchistan and being met by brutal repression by the

dictatorship in Iran which has added religious bigotry to

tyranny; and

Whereas it is the policy of the United States to oppose aggression

and the violation of human rights inherent in

the subjugation of national groups as currently being

shown in Iran and Pakistan against the aspirations of

the Baluch people:

Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that the people of Baluchistan, currently divided between Pakistan,

Iran, and Afghanistan, have the right to self-determination and to their own sovereign country and they should be afforded the opportunity

to choose their own status among the community of nations, living in peace and harmony, without external coercion.

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:15 Feb 16, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 C:\DOCUME~1\KMAMAR~1\APPLIC~1\SOFTQUAD\XMETAL\5.5\GEN\C\ROHRAB~1.XML

http://rohrabacher.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=281121

IWP president meets with the Khan of Kalat

2012-02-14T01:32:00.001-08:00

IWP president meets with the Khan of Kalat

Posted: Tuesday, January 10, 2012

PRESS RELEASES

Publication Date: January 10, 2012

On Saturday, January 7, 2012, IWP founder and president John Lenczowski and board member Paul Behrends joined a Congressional delegation to meet with the 35th (and current) Khan of Kalat, H.H. Amir Ahmed Suleman Daud. The Khan is the titular leader of the people of Baluchistan, one of the largest nations in the world that does not have its own state. The Baluch people, of which there approximately are 35 million, live among three countries: Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Iran. Their territory includes about 1,200 kilometers of coastline along the Arabian sea. The Baluch people historically enjoyed a certain level of "national" sovereignty as recently as the late 1800s, at which time, they came via treaty to be under British suzerainty.
Just as the United States has neglected strong relations with the tribal leaders of north, central, and western Afghanistan, it has also largely neglected relations with the Baluch, who have often chafed under Pakistani and Iranian rule. Improvement of these relations could contribute to denying strategic space to Islamist extremists, who have attempted to congregate particularly in Pakistani Baluchistan, and specifically in the major regional city of Quetta.
The delegation, which convened in Berlin, Germany, discussed these and other relevant issues.http://www.iwp.edu/news_publications/detail/iwp-president-meets-with-the-khan-of-kalat

Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations House Committee on Foreign Affairs

2012-02-09T15:29:00.000-08:00

Baluchistan Hearing, February 8, 2012
Testimony of Ralph Peters, military analyst and author
“PAKISTAN AS A FAILING EMPIRE”
Introductory remarks: This testimony arises from three premises.
First, we cannot analyze global events through reassuring ideological lenses, be they left or
right, or we will continue to be mistaken, surprised and bewildered by foreign developments.
The rest of the world will neither conform to our prejudices nor behave for our convenience.
Second, focusing obsessively on short-term problems blinds us to the root causes and
frequent intractability of today’s conflicts. Because we do not know history, we wave history
away. Yet, the only way to understand the new world disorder is to place current
developments in the context of generations and even centuries. Otherwise, we will continue to
blunder through situations in which we deploy to Afghanistan to end Taliban rule, only to find
ourselves, a decade later, impatient to negotiate the Taliban’s return to power.
Third, we must not be afraid to “color outside of the lines.” When it comes to foreign affairs,
Washington’s political spectrum is monochromatic: timid, conformist and wrong with
breathtaking consistency. We have a Department of State that refuses to think beyond borders
codified at Versailles nine decades ago; a Department of Defense that, faced with messianic
and ethnic insurgencies, concocted its doctrine from irrelevant case studies of yesteryear’s
Marxist guerrillas; and a think-tank community almost Stalinist in its rigid allegiance to
twentieth-century models of how the world should work.
If we do not think innovatively, we will continue to fail ignobly.
Pakistan’s Empire and Baluchistan’s Freedom Struggle
Pakistan is not an integrated state, but a miniature empire that inherited its dysfunctional
and unjust boundaries from Britain’s greater, now-defunct empire. Pakistan consists of two
parts: the core Pakistan constituted by the comparatively rich and powerful provinces of Punjab
and Sindh, and the territories, primarily west of the Indus River, treated as colonial possessions
by the Punjabis and Sindhis. Once an observer grasps this elementary fact, Pakistan’s internal
problems and our own difficulties with Islamabad come into focus.
2
We must set aside our lazy Cold-War-era assumption that Pakistan is a necessary ally and
recognize that the various insurgent movements challenging the Islamabad government are
engaged in liberation struggles against an occupier. Whether Baluchi separatists or the
Pakistani Taliban, these fighters (some of them certainly distasteful to our social values) are not
an isolated phenomenon—as we would prefer to believe—but simply more players in the long
struggle for the devolution of power that began with the collapse of European empires. Their
version of freedom may not match our criteria, but they are, nonetheless, freedom fighters on
their own terms and for their own people.
Pakistan’s borders make no sense and don’t work. The Durand Line, delineating the state’s
border with Afghanistan, was just a convenient inheritance from British India: Originally, it
established how far the British believed they needed to push out a buffer zone west of the
Indus River to protect “the Jewel in the Crown,” British India, from tribal warfare and imperial
Russian machinations. The Durand Line marked a military frontier, but the “real” frontier of
British India and its rich civilization was the Indus.
Anyone who travels to Pakistan and drives across the Indus in either direction recognizes
that the river remains what it has been since the age of Alexander: the divide between
civilizations. To the east, in populous Punjab and Sindh, you encounter the complex cultures of
the Subcontinent: Even the food is dramatically different. To the west, you find tribal societies
whose characteristics, cultural and physical, are those of Central Asia. To the east, relative
sophistication; to the west, tribal norms. From Gwadar northward through Quetta, Peshawar
and on to Gilgit, the visitor stands on occupied territory.
The Durand Line arbitrarily divided tribal territories for British (and now Pakistani)
convenience. It would be hard to devise a more dysfunctional international border. Along with
the rupture of minor ethnic groups, it split the substantial Pashtun and Baluchi populations
between the artificial constructs that emerged as Pakistan and Afghanistan. Also for
convenience, the rest of the world agreed to pretend that these are viable states. Yet,
Afghanistan is little more than a rough territorial concept: Its historical rulers controlled, at
best, major cities and the caravan (now highway) routes between them. At its birth sixty-five
years ago, Pakistan was a Frankenstein’s monster of a state, cobbled together from ill-fitting
body parts to award the subcontinent’s Muslim activists a state of their own.
Today’s ethnic-based and religion-fueled insurgencies are inevitable protests against borders
that never worked and cultures that don’t match. Even Afghanistan’s western border is a
manifestation not of sound geopolitical logic, but of Iran’s weakness at the time the border was
determined. Afghanistan will never become a modern, integrated state; Pakistan will never be
a prosperous and peaceful one; and Iran will never be a contented one.
When we support the Islamabad government, we not only support an enemy who sponsors
and protects the terrorists who kill and maim our soldiers in Afghanistan; who hid our mostwanted
terrorist in a garrison town; and who extorts blood-money to keep our ill-conceived
supply routes open; but we also support a brutal oppressor and occupier that denies
fundamental rights, legitimate opportunities and even identity to millions of its own citizens.
Failing to distinguish adequately between the Afghan and Pakistani Taliban, we cannot
conceive of the Pashtuns as engaged in a freedom struggle: Their social values and religious
fanaticism are abhorrent to us. Yet, objectively viewed, they are fighting—with broad popular
support among their own kind—for independence and their reactionary, tribal version of
3
freedom. If we remove our emotions and prejudices from the equation, can we justify denying
forty million Pashtuns in Pakistan and Afghanistan their own state? Of course, determining the
final boundaries of such a state would be problematic, but why shouldn’t the Pashtuns have
their own country? Because long-dead Britons drew a line on a map?
The same logic applies with even greater force to the Baluchis, who are not our enemies. We
remain blinded by our ill-starred Cold-War alliance with Islamabad—a regime that always
behaved treacherously toward us (our current relationship with Pakistan bears an uncanny
resemblance to our country’s relations with the Barbary Pirates before President Jefferson put
an end to tribute money). Thus we miss the fundamental injustice of the Pakistani construct.
We avert our eyes from the arrests and murders of Baluchi activists because we’re unwilling to
face the truth about Islamabad’s nature—and our complicity in oppression.
At present, the Baluchis are divided between southwestern Pakistan, southern Afghanistan
and southeastern Iran—all because of those artificial borders that were convenient for
someone else. At least ten million and perhaps twice that number suffer intolerable levels of
discrimination, dispossession and state violence.
While going to Afghanistan to shatter al Qaeda and punish the Taliban for hosting Osama bin
Laden was necessary, remaining in force to persuade Afghans to remake themselves in our
image was folly. With the best intentions, we thrust ourselves into a generations-long civil war
that will, eventually, redraw the region’s boundaries. In fact, our allegiance to today’s
boundaries exacerbates the conflict, worsening the lot of our former allies, the Northern
Alliance, and marginalizing the Baluchis in the south, while enabling the Taliban to exploit those
borders against us (with Pakistan’s help).
Afghanistan’s borders don’t work, and Pakistan’s borders don’t work. It’s not our job to alter
them, but it’s a fool’s errand to defend them. We have stranded 100,000 American troops at
the end of vulnerable supply lines through hostile or unreliable states in order to defend
borders left behind by defunct European empires. This is a travesty of the first order. And
instead of recognizing that peoples throughout the conflict zone, from Baluchis, through
Pashtuns, Tajiks, Uzbeks and Hazaras, to Kashmiri separatists are fighting for their identities and
independence in multi-sided conflicts, we reduce the formula to us-against-them. But this
conflict is not about us. We’re military tourists passing through, unwilling to recognize the
nature of the fight into which we have thrust ourselves.
We’re on the wrong side of history in AfPak, defending the legacy of imperial ghosts. And
we’re going to lose. It’s not our job to change these borders ourselves, but it’s only common
sense to get out of the way. We support the Karzai government from a lack of strategic
imagination, bureaucratic inertia and military vanity. And our support for Pakistan is not only
un-American, but facilitates the ongoing murder and mutilation of our troops.
Killing terrorists across the border in Pakistan is the sole useful aspect of our presence in
Afghanistan. It doesn’t take 100,000 troops.
4
The Pakistani Military’s Obsession with Afghanistan
Pakistani strategic thought is frozen in the mid-twentieth century. The Pakistani military’s
world-view was shaped primarily by two events. First, the relatively junior officers who became
Pakistan’s colonels and generals at Independence had witnessed how the British were able to
exploit strategic depth when the Japanese sought to invade India; despite the impressive initial
victories of the Japanese and their superior fighting qualities early in the war, extended supply
lines exhausted them and left them vulnerable to counteroffensives that finally destroyed their
armies. Thus, the Pakistani military has been obsessed since its creation with strategic depth
for a war with India. Their thinking always missed the fact that the Burma buffer kept the
Japanese from the prize, while India would reach the prize immediately--the Afghan buffer and
strategic depth are on the wrong side. But strategic depth became the basis of Pakistani
strategy and no one dares challenge it. Even the threat of nuclear conflict has failed to alter the
Pakistani mindset, with generals still insisting that strategic depth in the Afghan wilds would
somehow be useful after the nuclear destruction of Pakistan. (A key lesson here is that
strategy—including our own—is more often driven by habit and emotion than logic.) So, today,
we have Pakistan’s security establishment waging a clandestine war against our presence in
Afghanistan, determined to secure Afghanistan for strategic depth in a war with India that
Pakistan would lose catastrophically at the outset.
The other key event that shaped the mindset of today’s Pakistani generals was the Indo-
Pakistani War of 1971 (by far the most traumatic for Islamabad of the four wars and numerous
lesser confrontations between the two countries since Independence). The war began as
Pakistan’s military moved to crush the independence movement in East Bengal (today’s
Bangladesh). The savagery of the Pakistani army toward its own citizens shocked the world and
gave India cover for intervening and dismembering Pakistan—a great advantage for New Delhi,
since East Bengal had allowed Pakistan to operate against India’s eastern as well as western
frontier. The Pakistani military’s humiliating defeat and the loss of nearly half of the state they
inherited from British India left the security establishment determined to crack down hard and
early on any signs of separatism.
Unfortunately for Pakistan, the obsession with strategic depth ultimately trumped antiseparatism
policies to the extent that Pakistan assisted in the rise of the Taliban and maintains
support for it today. Pakistan’s generals assumed, naively, that terrorists and insurgents could
be managed (we’re not the only victims of wishful thinking). But the Afghan Taliban in turn
gave birth to the Pakistani Taliban. Now the Pakistani security establishment is riven,
intermittently fighting some insurgents, while tolerating or actively supporting others, and
unsure how to move forward.
In supporting the Pashtun insurgency in Afghanistan, Pakistan has sown the seeds of its own
destruction. While its generals remain skillful at manipulating the United States Government,
they have lost control of significant portions of their own country.
Only a gross perversion of Realpolitik could justify our acceptance of this military’s brutality
toward the Baluchis and other minorities. We are in bed with an imperialist, militarist and
thoroughly corrupt state that barely makes a pretense of democracy. We want to be duped.
5
AfPak in a Global Context
The problem of dysfunctional borders left behind by the retreat of European empires isn’t
limited to AfPak. One of our own worst blind spots lies in the conviction of our diplomats that
all borders currently on the map have existed since the age of the dinosaurs and must never
change. But borders have always changed and will continue to change. Our own age is one of
breakdown: first of those European empires, now of the vestigial empires and artificial states
that appeared in their wake. Not only in AfPak, but around the world the grim joke is that the
United States of America, the greatest force for freedom in history, now defends the legacy of
bygone European empires.
Consider this: Every one of our wars and significant military engagements since and including
Desert Storm has been triggered or exacerbated by artificial borders left behind by European
empires: Iraq has always been a phony state created for British clients, and Saddam Hussein
decided that the Ottoman Empire’s old borders entitled him to Kuwait; Somalia is a bizarre
amalgamation of territories that divides some peoples, while thrusting together others who
hate each other (yet, our diplomats refuse to recognize Somaliland as a separate—thriving—
state, insisting that it must remain under the mastery of a Mogadishu government that cannot
defend itself again Islamist terrorists); Yugoslavia, too, was a mini-empire doomed to collapse,
yet Republican and Democratic administrations alike continued to argue that the shrinking
state should somehow remain unified; we went to Afghanistan and decided that the will of the
locals didn’t matter and that we would build a western-style, rule-of-law, unified democracy
within European-designated borders; and we deposed Saddam Hussein, but refused to
countenance freedom for the Kurds or a judicious break-up of the dysfunctional state, insisting
again that those European-drawn borders remain sacrosanct. Now we face a conflict with Iran-
-the latest, shrunken version of a Persian Empire—while Turkey dreams of re-establishing the
Ottoman Empire. Not one of the borders listed in this paragraph worked or works.
Beyond the litany of our recent and pending military involvements, consider just a few of the
other crises underway that stem from European-demarcated borders that either thrust
together those who do not wish to be together, or divide peoples who seek reunion: Nigeria
only maintains its current borders because those boundaries were established by British
colonialists; otherwise, Nigeria makes no sense as a state and, by nature, would be two or even
three states. Congo does not and cannot possibly work as a unified state, but other European
empires awarded it to the King of the Belgians in the 1880s, so we accept it as a sovereign state
for all eternity. Today’s Syria was created for the French in a bout of Franco-British horsetrading
(or land-swapping). Jordan was created as a prize for British Great-War clients.
Indonesia—another empire—is just the post-colonial name of the Dutch East Indies, with no
other unifying principle than the might of the Javanese. And Russia maintains much, though
not all, of the empire of the czars.
The unifying thread—beyond the false borders themselves—is the centrifugal pressures
created by peoples determined to rule themselves. When we automatically side with the
“imperial” powers against the right of self-determination, we betray our own history and
professed values. This certainly does not mean that every secessionist movement is admirable,
only that these movements are inevitable in a world so long deformed by European empires.
6
Nor will these problems soon resolve themselves. Every person in this room will be dead
before the legacy of the European imperial era is fully behind us. Apply simple logic: Depending
on which part of the globe we examine, European imperial powers forcefully altered local
social, governmental, military and economic structures for between one-hundred and fivehundred
years. The post-colonial era began in earnest in 1945. Can we really believe that
dilemmas that took up to half a millennium to create can be resolved in an American election
cycle or two? Nor is this to say that all of Europe’s imperial legacies were bad: They were a
mixed bag, varying from the monstrous cruelty of the Belgians in Africa, to the unifying legacy
of the British in today’s India. Rather than arguing over just how bad the colonial powers were,
we need to accept their interlude of rule as historical fact and move on from that point.
The best way to explain the varied upheavals we see around the world, from Benghazi to
Baluchistan, from Caracas to Kandahar, is to think of human societies as eco-systems or simply
physical systems. In the Newtonian order (and ninth-grade physics), when an external agent
forces a system out of its natural balance and holds it out of balance, the sudden removal of the
external agent causes the affected system to seek to regain its equilibrium. For centuries, the
external force of European colonialism forced human societies around the world out of the
“organic” balance they had achieved for themselves (although it doesn’t do to shed tears for
the Aztecs). With the sudden removal of that external force, we’ve seen the liberated societies
strive to find a new functional balance. The process is difficult and fraught with mistakes, and
patience is not a salient human characteristic. When the process frustrates the participants
sufficiently, they turn to violence. Almost all of the wars and conflicts we see around us, from
South Sudan to Daghestan, reflect the challenges of rebalancing social and political ecologies.
Artificial borders make it all worse.
And there’s more bad news: Globalization, which we were assured would bring us all
together, only unified the world’s most privileged. For the masses, globalization and its
consort, the information revolution, have created a wrenching crisis of identity: Around the
world, disappointed human beings have defaulted to the elementary question “Who am I?”
Increasingly, their answer is not the one academic theories predicted. Instead of answering,
“I am a Pakistani” or “Afghan” or “Nigerian” or “a citizen of the world,” their answer is “I am a
Baluch” or “Pashtun” or “Hausa,” or, even more fundamentally, “I am a Muslim” or “Christian”
or “Jew.” In times of stress and dislocation, primary identities reassert themselves—and no
identities are more powerful or persistent than those of faith and ethnicity. Kabul intellectuals
may tell us that they’re “Afghans,” but our Western-educated interlocutors only deceive us
(and themselves). This is an age of comprehensive breakdown, when even Europeans insist
that they are Walloons, Catalans, Lombards or Scots.
What Should We Do?
None of the points made above are intended to spark an American campaign to fix all the
world’s flawed borders. We can’t and we shouldn’t. Rather, the purpose is to warn against the
folly of defending the doomed relics of the colonial era. There may be times when preserving
specific artificial borders are a strategic necessity, but we should not reflexively defend all
extant borders for the convenience of diplomats delighted with their embassy housing
assignments. When borders are under great local pressure to change, it’s usually best to get
7
out of the way and let them change. The process and result will often be messy, even
disheartening…but we cannot resist the deepest currents of history. Our demand for instant
gratification is our greatest strategic weakness.
We must stand back and try to understand the roots of strategic diseases and not just rush
to treat the topical symptoms.
We also need to accept that the Cold War is over. Russia remains a self-destructive
nuisance, but some old alliances—not least, ours with Pakistan—do far more harm than good
(as did our long support for the Mubarak regime in Egypt, for example). Instead of applying a
comforting twentieth-century template to the world, we must work to understand the new
orders that are emerging—and will continue to emerge for generations. And unless we wish to
continue to waste the blood of our troops and our treasure, we must not be afraid to be
politically incorrect.
We must stop casting geostrategic challenges in simplistic us-vs.-them terms. Every conflict
in which we have been engaged in recent years has been many-sided and many-layered. I used
to quip that, in the Balkans, you can’t ask “Who’s guilty?” but have to ask “Who’s guilty this
week?” In complex, multi-generational conflicts such as those playing out in the semi-governed
territories we call “Pakistan” and “Afghanistan,” players may be helpful and treacherous
simultaneously. Instead of forever asking “Who are the good guys?” we need to ask “Which
course of action is to our advantage?”
We need to ask honestly why Baluchis are not entitled to a Free Baluchistan, why the
Pashtuns—despite their abhorrent customs—are not entitled to a Pakhtunkhwa for all
Pashtuns, why forty-million Kurds aren’t entitled to a Free Kurdistan, or why its eastern
provinces must remain part of the geopolitical monstrosity we call “Congo.” Again, the point is
not to encourage an activist foreign policy, but simply to recognize that it’s usually wise to get
out of the way of the oncoming train.
We live in a great age of contradictions and confusions, even in our terminology. While the
Taliban are insurgents, they are not revolutionaries, but reactionary forces fighting for the old
ways of tribal life. We are the revolutionaries, but tribal, religion-tyrannized cultures don’t
want our program of secular values and social liberation (we’re willfully blind to the fact that in
Afghanistan we are attempting exactly what the Russians attempted—not only governmental,
but social and moral modernization; for example, the Russians did more for the plight of Afghan
women than we have). While we may hold our own ideological convictions dear, we have to
learn to content ourselves with doing what’s necessary and doable.
Serious strategy begins with three questions: What precisely do we want to achieve? Is it
achievable? And, if it’s achievable, is it worth the probable cost? In our recent conflicts, we
failed to answer a single one of those questions honestly.
Except for existential wars of survival, sound strategy aims at a positive return on
investment—just as we expect a positive return on the money we put into our retirement
accounts. In conflicts in which we have a choice of engagement or non-intervention, we have
to become more sophisticated at analyzing the “investment quality” of our decision. Again, we
return to the basic question: “What do we get out of it?” Turning our occupation of Iraq into a
looting orgy for well-connected contractors did not enhance the security of our citizens.
The old American argument of Crusader America versus Fortress America, of interventionist
versus isolationist, is dangerous and childish. We cannot hide in Kansas because, as on 9/11,
8
the world comes to us. But we also cannot embark upon spendthrift nation-building efforts
where there’s no nation to build.
We need to re-learn the strategic art of acting in our own interests. Generally, our interests
are not served by clinging to old, dictatorial or corrupt regimes, but by declining to support the
dying order. At times, military intervention in support of change may be to our advantage.
More often, it will be a matter of getting out of the way of the inevitable. But what we should
never do is to align ourselves with violent oppressors of minorities, with blackmailers, or with
those who help our enemies kill our troops. In other words, it’s time to abandon Pakistan and
switch our support wholeheartedly to India.

US house committee hearing on Balochistan

2012-02-09T01:29:00.000-08:00

Analysis: US house committee hearing on Balochistan, Oversight and Investigations

by Mureed Bizenjo Let’s think about creating a Balochistan in southern part of Pakistan, said Congress republican Louie Gohmert, who completely backed the idea of independant Balochistan. Many people in Pakistan at present are not aware of the fact that Balochistan was invaded and forcibly annexed on March 27, 1948 (Seven and a half months after the creation of Pakistan), against the wishes of Baloch people and the two houses of Baloch parliaments who voted unanimously against the accession with Pakistan. That very day is mourned and marked as “Black day” in the land of miseries (Balochistan)

After nearly six and a half decades of annexation and prolonged journey of injustice, of discrimination, death and hopelessness, Today Baloch voice was heard in the fortress of United States, in a congressional hearing convened by the congress republican Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, focusing Balochistan, which was attended and rejoiced by the Baloch diaspora and pro-Balochistan activists. The Committee’s unprecedented hearing on Balochistan is the witness of of ongoing uncared-for Balochistan crisis. Rohrabacher has previously stated in one of his articles “Perhaps we should even consider support for a Balochistan carved out of Pakistan to diminish radical power there (in Pakistan)” where as the US house committee hearing has definately annoyed Pakistan’s government considering it an internal matter, and some years ago Pakistan government had refused to allow the US to open a consulate in Balochistan.
The hearing held in Rayburn House Office Building February 8, 2012 in Washington DC USA, chaired by Dana Rohrabacher. Key witnesses to speak in the hearing were C. Christine Fair (Ph.D. Assistant Professor Georgetown University), Mr. Ralph Peters (Military Analyst and Author), Mr. T. Kumar Director (International Advocacy Amnesty International USA), M. Hossein Bor (Ph.D. Counsel Entwistle & Cappucci, LLP), Mr. Ali Dayan Hasan (Pakistan Director, Asia Division Human Rights Watch)
Full scale Baloch genocide far exceeding to what Selig. S. Harrison said about a slow motion genocide two years ago, and the indigenous people’s deprivation of right to self-determination were the most significant points of discussion which were also agreed upon by all the key witnesses in the hearing. There is substantial evidence the fact that the people of Balochistan are deprived of their right to self-determination, they are being tortured forefully abducted and dumped in remote areas, over the past years there has been a gruesome increase in these human rights abuses, also highlighted by various human rights organizations (Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Asian Human Rights Commission)
Ironically out of all the witnesses Mr M. Hossein Bor was the only Baloch representative present in the hearing reflecting the true picture of the Balochistan Crisis. Mr Hossein highlighted the forceful annexation of the Balochistan province calling it an occupied territory, with his astute observation Mr Hossein reported the actual number of extra-judicial killings and fored abductions by the state sponsored institutions, he said “Extra-judical killings include 23 bullet-riddled bodies found in the first month of this year (2012), from 2001 till date around 4000 baloch have been disappeared” to which Chairman Rohrabachr expressed astonishment, in 5 minutes allowed by the chairman Mr Hossein discussed a brief but and articulated history of Balochistan highlighting the historic Durand line and Goldsmith line of 18th century, he also mentioned the Baloch insurgencies and uprisings of 1948, 1958, 1973, & 2005 till date, these insurgencies have been dealt with force and brutal military operations in which thousands of Baloch were killed. In the recent past, in 2011 alone atleast 300 bullet riddled bodies (on an average one each-day) were found, Mr Hossein also argued that the Humanright abuses were the main impediment in the process of dialogue in the province.

Christine Fair, a fairly controversial representative and an intense supporter of Pakistan with anti-India stance was also amongst the speakers. Just a week before the hearing she tweeted that “The ethnic Baloch are a minority in Balochistan” she also accused Dr Ralph peters a fellow witness of being a “nut”. Dr Ralph Peters is also known as the “Map re-drawing man” who In a June 2006 article titled “Blood borders: How a better Middle East would look“, conducted a thought experiment by changing the borders in the Middle East, wherein Balochistan was shown as an independant territory covering Baloch population of Pakistan, Iran and Afghanistan, which are the historic borders of greater Balochistan.
Christince Fair in her five mintues talk voiced against extra-judicial executions and various human rights abuses, she also refuted her tweet regarding her question of Baloch majority in the province saying “Baloch are the largest ethnic group in the province” She also highlighted the target killings of Shia muslims in the province by extremist millitant groups, there is enough evidence of millitant groups (Lashkar-e-Jhangvi, Sipah-e-Sahaba) backed by Pakistan millitary and Intelligence agencies perpetrating against the ethnich shia minority in Balochistan.

The only representative from Pakistan Mr Ali Dayan hassan who is also the Pakistan director of Human Rights Watch, was also provided an opportunity to speak at the US house committe hearing, he clearly stated that he being HRW representative takes no position on the Independance of Balochistan, he further added that there is not just one but multiple actors including state and non-state actors perpetrating in Balochistan involved in human rights abuses, he also said “At-least 40% of the population of Balochistan are non-Baloch” .
It is widely known that Baloch because of their small population are a minority in Pakistan, being 4% but claiming nearly half of the country’s geographic land. In Balochistan, the ethnic Baloch are atleast 75% of the total population, the southern part being a Pashtun majority, a part of British Balochistan to which Balochistan and the ethnic-Baloch historically does not have any claim, other minority ethnic groups based in Balochistan include Pashtuns, Hazaras, Urdu-speaking, Punjabi, and Sindhis. The province is sub-divided in 30 districts out of which only 9 disctricts (Ziarat, Zhob, Pashin, Quetta, Chaman, Mosakhel, Qila abdulah & Qila saifullah, Loralai) are of Pashtun majority and the remaining 21 being Baloch populated areas.
Mr Dayan’s testimony submitted to the US house committee chairman also stated ” Militancy in Balochistan has been fueled by ethnic Baloch anger over the Pakistani government’s efforts to harness local mineral and fossil fuel resources, maintain large numbers of troops in the province, and construct the Gwadar deep-sea port at the mouth of the Persian Gulf with non-Baloch workers”. If we go back half a decade we actually find out that the current insurgency was never against ” government’s efforts to harness local mineral, or against construction of the Gawadar-port”, the region is currently going through its fifth insurgency, which was ignited after the brutal assassination of Baloch leader Nawab Akbar Bugti in 2006 by General Musharraf in his dictatorial regime who before the brutal assassination openly said ” “We (millitary) will hit them (Baloch) in such a way they wouldn’t even know what hit them” The aftermath of General sahab’s millitary operation executing Nawab Bugti and state’s conolization policies which can be seen without manifestation are reasons that transformed a rights movement into a freedom movement, harnessing the resources of Balochistan, maintaining large number of troops and construction of Gawadar port are secondary issues.
Before the hearing was aired live, Pakistani embassy in Washington held that it has taken strong notice of the scheduled meeting and Pakistani officials claimed that some foreign hands are involved in fanning the violence in the province along the Afghan border. Instead of inventing another conspiracy theory out of the legitimate hearing, Pakistan government and officials should rather reconsider their colonial policies lodged against the Baloch, If Balochistan had any hopes from the state, ‘independant’ judiciary, or media, this issue would not have been picked up by the Republicans who may aswell regain power in forthcomming elections. The ordinary people of Balochistan have been tolerant for six prolonged decades, witnessing horrific executions, endless stories of deception, and shallow promises, but this day in history will be marked as a new begining of diplomacy voicing the Baloch rights, new era of endurance and expectations. The Baloch might have to pay a high price for being heard but will hope that justice will be ‘served’ than ‘denied

Carve Out Balochistan

2012-01-25T16:31:00.000-08:00

Michael McAuliff mike.mcauliff@huffingtonpost.com Become a fan of this reporter

GET UPDATES FROM Michael

Louie Gohmert Afghan Strategy: Carve Out Balochistan From Ally Pakistan To Beat Taliban

Posted: 01/25/2012 6:26 pm

React

WASHINGTON -- President Obama is losing the war in Afghanistan to the Taliban, argued Rep. Louie Gohmert after listening to Tuesday's State of the Union address. So he proposed one way to win: create a new, friendly state within the borders of neighboring Pakistan.
The Texas Republican took issue with Obama's assertion that "the Taliban's momentum has been broken." He said he had just visited Afghanistan and came away with a very different sense from talking to members of the Northern Alliance, a multiethnic confederation of warlords and other forces who led the U.S.-backed ouster of the Taliban in 2001.
Gohmert argued that, far from being broken, the Taliban are feeling powerful enough to demand that members of the Northern Alliance apologize before the United States leaves in 2013. "If you look at the objective facts ... they're not on the run," Gohmert said.
His solution was first to supply more arms to the Northern Alliance. But then, he said, the Afghan border with Pakistan needs to be shored up.
"Let's talk about creating a Balochistan in the southern part of Pakistan," Gohmert told The Huffington Post, referring to a region of Pakistan that constitutes nearly half that vital if troublesome ally.
"They love us. They'll stop the IEDs [improvised explosive devices] and all the weaponry coming into Afghanistan, and we got a shot to win over there," said Gohmert, who accused Obama's national security advisers of giving the president bad intel on Afghanistan.
"His strategy of working from ignorance and thinking we have them on the run is no way to go through life, son," Gohmert said. "I'm about to borrow from an 'Animal House' line, but anyway, that's no way to go through life when you're that ignorant of what's really going on."

The White House did not answer a request for comment, and Gohmert's office did not elaborate on how the United States could even discuss carving off Balochistan from a country that is both an ally and a nuclear power.
The United States recently has been talking about a truce with the Taliban. Gohmert, a member of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security, characterized such efforts as begging, backed by an offer to "let all these Taliban murderers" go free.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/25/louie-gohmert-afghan-strategy-balochistan-pakistan-taliban_n_1232250.html

Obama’s Afghan Policy Is Empowering the Taliban

2012-01-18T11:25:00.000-08:00

by Reps. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) and Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA)

In September 2011 Former President Burhanuddin Rabbani, a key Northern Alliance leader and the only Tajik to be President of Afghanistan, was murdered after Taliban emissaries promised to deliver him an important message of peace. When welcomed, they blew him up.

In August 2011, after a conspiracy that lured in members of our Seal Team Six with other heroic Americans, the Taliban set up an ambush and murdered them.
Following those brutal attacks, President Obama’s strategy has been to hasten negotiations with the Taliban. Additionally, the Obama administration has now not only offered to release known Taliban terrorists from detention, but has already released some and additionally offered to legitimize our sworn enemy by furnishing them a princely office in Qatar.
In return, Obama’s agents defend that they are being tough on the Taliban by demanding that they not use the office to raise funds to support their terrorism. That is a bit reminiscent of the Clinton-Albright demand of North Korea that if we give them nuclear technology, they must promise to use it for electric generation and not weapons.
According to many Afghans, all of these and other Obama Administration actions give substantial credence to the Taliban claim, supported privately by some Pakistani leaders, that the U.S. has lost in Afghanistan and is now begging them for negotiations. One Taliban leader who was released from detention by the Obama administration for medical and end of life purposes, is now back in command and recently demanded on Afghan TV that since the Americans have now lost and are begging for negotiations, Afghans disloyal to the Taliban must come ask forgiveness and for safety from the Taliban.

A Northern Alliance leader says that of the more than 800 Taliban detainees that have been released, he is now seeing many of them fighting, killing and terrorizing again. Yet, the Northern Alliance leaders are being effectively shut out of the plans for the way forward, while being demonized by the American government they helped.
The State Department even went to extraordinary links to attempt preventing the writers from meeting with the Northern Alliance leaders. We were able to meet, with some help from foreign friends, but clearly the Obama administration and its comrades mean for our allies to stay under the bus when they throw them there.
In late 2001-2002, the Taliban were defeated with less than 500 Americans embedded with the Northern Alliance, but now the Taliban is stronger while we have more than 100,000 American troops in Afghanistan. Though Vice-President Biden says the Taliban are not our enemies, American soldiers in Afghanistan say the Taliban are still creating IED’s, firing bullets, firing rockets and doing all they can to kill Americans, so it seemed to them that the Taliban certainly think they are our enemy. This points straight to the fact our military is not the problem; its their commander in chief who is the current weak link in our chain of command.
To date, the U.S. nation-building experiment in Afghanistan has produced instability, violence, skyrocketing drug production, widespread corruption, fraudulently rigged elections and the general disapproval of this new government by its own people. Under the U.S.-approved, Afghan Constitution, President Karzai appoints all governors for the provinces, all mayors, police chiefs, the slate for one third of the Senate candidates, and even a segment of the Class 1 teachers in the country. He even has power of the purse that the U.S. President does not have. Clearly this is a formula for heightened corruption, while isolating and ignoring many ethnic groups that make up the very essence of Afghan society.
Many with first-hand experience fighting the Taliban say they are dependent on Pakistan for their marching orders, strategy, and weaponry. In the meantime, President Karzai’s regime has dropped every pretense of appreciation for American sacrifice in blood and treasure as demonstrated by his recent threats to align with Pakistan, Iran and China even as we continue to prop up his government. From Karzai’s perspective, he may well see the Taliban and Pakistan as holding his fate in their hands once the U.S. pulls out.
At the same time, the U.S. is pouring billions of dollars into Afghanistan that comprises the largest portion of the Afghan government’s own budget. U.S.A.I.D. alone is pouring $3.6 billion a year into the country for aid and projects while the money often fails to get past corrupt government officials with 80 percent going to Taliban areas and a tiny fraction going to areas where our allies reside.
The Afghan leaders have become increasingly enriched as their contempt for us has continued to grow. At President Karzai’s encouragement, we have politically and militarily undermined the natural and historic barrier to the Taliban, which is the non-Pashtun peoples of the North, Central and Western parts of Afghanistan. As these non-Pashtun communities were weakened, their leaders were undermined by U.S. support for Karzai and his concentration of power.
The critical next step should be to insist on a new Constitutional Loya Jirga, or convention, that will draft a new constitution enshrining federalism as the new form of government. This would break the Taliban’s ability to dominate Afghanistan by strengthening those communities opposed to the return of the Taliban and their Al-Qaeda allies. It would give Afghans the kind of hope that our founders provided Americans 225 years ago with our Constitution.
We should insist on local elections of Afghan governors and mayors who may then select the police chiefs. Electing regional leaders would serve to eliminate the conduit of corruption built into the present system, while at the same time giving the governing authority back to the people who are now being disenfranchised.
This course would establish the basis for a political system that allows each of Afghanistan’s ethnic communities to retain their identity and protect them from the Taliban’s violent ethnic repression, brutality and regressive domination. The resulting political framework would also enable trust and goodwill to be built between Afghanistan’s diverse communities as each community would have a direct and important say in its own future.
Perhaps we should even consider support for a Balochistan carved out of Pakistan to diminish radical power there also. Surely, leaving Afghanistan to the same terrorist thugs who enabled the September 11th attacks is the very definition of insanity.The way forward should not include the current Obama plan of putting our future in Taliban hands that are covered with American blood.

Statement

2012-01-16T07:37:00.000-08:00

Statement Khan of Kalat

I would like to clear some misinformation about the London Baluch unity conference announced and cancelled by Dr. W. Baluch. The khan of Kalat Sulmen Daud has never asked Dr, W. Baluch (BSO-NA) to initiate London Baluch unity conference. The Khan was never consulted by Dr. W. Baluch or any one else before announcing the conference. Once the conference reported in electronic media the Khan of kalat did not approved the untimely conference and simple distanced himself from conference.

Fundamentally the Khan of Kalat believes in a unity conference The Baluch nation is divided in political parties, tribes, and on ward. In order to unite the Baluch political parties, tribal chieftains, we need to build consensus with those forces who believes in the independent Baluchistan. Before holding any unity conference we believe there should a committee. Once a committee is formed the committee would consult, the political parties, notable, activists, community leaders and Baluch NGO and take every one views on board.

Baluchistan belongs to the Baluch nation. The political parties, community leader, political activist, NGO, tribal chieftain represent the collective view of the Baluch nation and the khan of kalat believes they should be consulted on the future of Baluchistan. The khan believes every Baluch has a view and his/her view should be heard in a conference.

Cardiff, the office of Khan of kalat,

Nationalism Rules It’s the most powerful political force in the world and ignoring it will come at a price.

2012-01-02T13:51:00.000-08:00

BY STEPHEN M. WALT | JULY 15, 2011

What's the most powerful political force in the world? Some of you might say it's the bond market. Others might nominate the resurgence of religion or the advance of democracy or human rights. Or maybe it's digital technology, as symbolized by the Internet and all that comes with it. Or perhaps you think it's nuclear weapons and the manifold effects they have had on how states think about security and the use of force.
Those are all worthy nominees (no doubt readers here will have their own favorites), but my personal choice for the Strongest Force in the World would be nationalism. The belief that humanity is comprised of many different cultures -- i.e., groups that share a common language, symbols, and a narrative about their past (invariably self-serving and full of myths) -- and that those groups ought to have their own state has been an overwhelmingly powerful force in the world over the past two centuries.
It was nationalism that cemented most of the European powers in the modern era, turning them from dynastic states into nation-states, and it was the spread of nationalist ideology that helped destroy the British, French, Ottoman, Dutch, Portuguese, Austro-Hungarian, and Russian/Soviet empires. Nationalism is the main reason the United Nations had fifty-one members immediately after its founding in 1945 and has nearly 200 members today. It is why the Zionists wanted a state for the Jewish people and why Palestinians want a state of their own today. It is what enabled the Vietnamese to defeat both the French and the American armies during the Cold War. It is also why Kurds and Chechens still aspire to statehood; why Scots have pressed for greater autonomy within the United Kingdom, and it is why we now have a Republic of South Sudan.
Understanding the power of nationalism also tells you a lot about what is happening today in the European Union. During the Cold War, European integration flourished because it took place inside the hot-house bubble provided by American protection. Today, however, the United States is losing interest in European security, the Europeans themselves face few external threats, and the EU project itself has expanded too far and badly overreached by creating an ill-advised monetary union. What we are seeing today, therefore, is a gradual renationalization of European foreign policy, fueled in part by incompatible economic preferences and in part by recurring fears that local (i.e., national) identities are being threatened. When Danes worry about Islam, Catalans demand autonomy, Flemish and Walloons contend in Belgium, Germans refuse to bail out Greeks, and nobody wants to let Turkey into the EU, you are watching nationalism at work.
The power of nationalism is easy for realists to appreciate and understand, as my sometime collaborator John Mearsheimer makes clear in an important new paper. Nations -- because they operate in a competitive and sometimes dangerous world -- seek to preserve their identities and cultural values. In many cases, the best way for them to do that is to have their own state, because ethnic or national groups that lack their own state are usually more vulnerable to conquest, absorption, and assimilation.

Similarly, modern states also have a powerful incentive to promote national unity -- in other words, to foster nationalism -- because having a loyal and united population that is willing to sacrifice (and in extreme cases, to fight and die) for the state increases its power and thus its ability to deal with external threats. In the competitive world of international politics, in short, nations have incentives to obtain their own state and states have incentives to foster a common national identity in their populations. Taken together, these twin dynamics create a long-term trend in the direction of more and more independent nation-states.
Obviously, nations and states don't always reach the goal of a unified "nation-state." Some nations never succeed in gaining independence, and some states never succeed in creating a unified national identity for themselves. And not every cultural or ethnic group thinks of itself as a nation or aspires to independence (though one can never be sure when some group might begin to acquire "national consciousness" and head in that direction). Nonetheless, the past hundred years has seen a steady rise in the number of states and the emergence of strong national movements in many of them, and I see no reason to expect this trend to be reversed.
Once established, a nation-state is a self-reinforcing phenomenon. Nation-states are hard to conquer and subdue, because the local population will usually resist outside invasion and continue to struggle against a foreign occupier. Successful national movements tend to spawn imitators, leading to further demands for statehood. Despite its occasional shortcomings (and the obvious examples of "failed states" like Somalia, Yemen, or Afghanistan), the national state is likely to remain the most important political entity in world politics for the foreseeable future.
Because American national identity tends to emphasize the civic dimension (based on supposedly universal principles such as individual liberty) and tends to downplay the historic and cultural elements (though they clearly exist) U.S. leaders routinely underestimate the power of local affinities and the strength of cultural, tribal, or territorial loyalties. During the Cold War, we persistently exaggerated the strength of transnational ideologies like Communism, and underestimated the degree to which national identities and interests would eventually generate intense conflicts within the Marxist world. Osama bin Laden made the same mistake when he thought that terrorist attacks and video-taped fulminations would ignite a mass movement to re-establish a transnational Islamic caliphate. And anyone who thinks that a rising China is going to tamely submit to U.S. or Western notions of the proper world order fails to appreciate the degree to which nationalism is also a central part of the Chinese worldview, and far more important than any lingering "communist" ideals.
Unless we fully appreciate the power of nationalism, in short, we are going to get a lot of things wrong about the contemporary political life. It is the most powerful political force in the world, and we ignore it at our peril.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/07/15/the_enduring_power_of_nationalism?page=0,0

Solve the Pakistan problem by redrawing the map

2011-12-21T15:54:00.000-08:00

M. CHRIS MASON

From Wednesday's Globe and Mail

Published Wednesday, Dec. 21, 2011 2:00AM EST

Relations between the United States and Pakistan have reached an all-time low. The Khyber Pass is closed to NATO cargo, U.S. personnel were evicted from Shamsi airbase and Pakistani observers have been recalled from joint co-operation centres.

Much more importantly, senior officials in Washington now know that Pakistan has been playing them false since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and understand that Pakistan was sheltering Osama bin Laden a few hundred yards from its version of West Point. The recent shelling of Afghan troops inside Afghanistan by the Pakistani army, and the NATO counterstrike, cleared in error by Pakistan, has further embarrassed the Pakistani military.

It should be obvious by now that Pakistan has no intention of doing what the United States has wanted for the past decade. The combination of wishful thinking, admiration for the emperor’s new clothes and $10-billion in payments to the Pakistani military have accomplished nothing. Admiral Michael Mullen was not wrong when he testified recently that the terrorist Haqqani network is operating as an arm of the Pakistani army. He might have added that the Taliban is the Pakistani army’s expeditionary force in Afghanistan. Pakistan shelters, funds, trains, supplies and advises the Taliban. The simple fact is that Pakistan is the world’s No. 1 state supporter of terrorism.

In Afghanistan, Pakistan will never be happy unless it has a puppet regime in Kabul and can run the country like a colony. Islamabad does not intend to allow the current Afghan constitution to remain in effect, and as soon as NATO pulls out, it will push the Taliban into an all-out civil war in Afghanistan designed to return it to power. All of which has led to a lot of hand-wringing in Washington, accompanied by a revolving-door procession of senior U.S. officials going to Islamabad to read a toothless riot act the Pakistanis can now recite by heart.

The permanent solution to the Pakistan problem is not more of this chest-beating appeasement. The answer lies in 20th-century history. In 1947, when India gained independence, a British Empire in full retreat left behind an unworkable mess on both sides of India – called Pakistan – whose elements had nothing in common except the religion of Islam. In 1971, this pos-tcolonial Frankenstein came a step closer to rectification when Bangladesh, formerly East Pakistan, became an independent state.

The answer to the current Pakistani train wreck is to continue this natural process by recognizing Baluchistan’s legitimate claim to independence. Baluchistan was an independent nation for more than 1,000 years when Great Britain notionally annexed it in the mid-19th century. The Baluchis were never consulted about becoming a part of Pakistan, and since then, they have been the victims of alternating persecution and neglect by the Pakistani state, abuse which escalated to genocide when it was discovered in the 1970s that most of the region’s natural resources lie underneath their soil. Since then, tens of thousands of Baluchis have been slaughtered by the Pakistani army, which has used napalm and tanks indiscriminately against an unarmed population.

Changing maps is difficult only because it is initially unimaginable to diplomats and politicians. Although redrawing maps is the definition of failure for the United Nations and the U.S. State Department, it has, in fact, been by such a wide margin the most effective solution to regional violence over the past 50 years that there is really nothing in second place. Among the most obvious recent examples (apart from the former Soviet Union) are North and South Sudan, Kosovo, Eritrea, Bosnia, Croatia, Macedonia, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, East Timor and Bangladesh.

An independent Baluchistan would, in fact, solve many of the region’s most intractable problems overnight. It would create a territorial buffer between rogue states Iran and Pakistan. It would provide a transportation and pipeline corridor for Afghanistan and Central Asia to the impressive but underutilized new port at Gwadar. It would solve all of NATO’s logistical problems in Afghanistan, allow us to root the Taliban out of the former province and provide greater access to Waziristan, to subdue our enemies there. And it would contain the rogue nuclear state of Pakistan and its A.Q. Khan network of nuclear proliferation-for-profit on three landward sides.

The way to put the Pakistani genie back in the bottle and cork it is to help the Baluchis go the way of the Bangladeshis in achieving their dream of freedom from tyranny, corruption and murder at the hands of the diseased Pakistani military state.

M. Chris Mason is a retired diplomat with long service in South Asia and a senior fellow at the Center for Advanced Defence Studies in Washington.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/opinion/solve-the-pakistan-problem-by-redrawing-the-map/article2278388/?utm_medium=Feeds%3A%20RSS%2FAtom&utm_source=World&utm_content=2278388

Not all political activity in Baluchistan can be regarded as nationalist.

2011-11-18T15:06:00.000-08:00

The nationalism has particular features. The focus of nationalism movement is to take over the state. The effective federalism nationalism respect colonial powers (Iranian and Pakistan rules over Baluchistan) develop a movement that to take over state power and claim state power for themselves.

The nationalist or federalist to achieve their objective it is essential for them to develop internal functions of co-ordination and mobilisation. Coordination is linked with the way in which the Iranian and Pakistan respectively adapts their collaboration system to pressures the Baluch.

the adaptations are important, the coordination are important in the ways in which this coordination and adaptation draws communal, tribal, regional and national levels of political action together. For example the existences of collaborators tribal chieftain and political parties have major impact on how collaborators and national struggle for liberation organised. A conflict exists within Baluch society between collaborators and non collaborators Baluch.

Political actions by collaborators chieftain and political parties devoted their resources and energy to take over of the states powers rather than taking over Baluchistan has damaged the appeal of national liberation. The control of inner Baluchistan affair is not substitute for the national sovereignty.

The nationalist movement should be able to coordinate diverse elites and gain support in the national terms. The nationalist movement should become an expression of entire Baluch nation. Nationalist movement should be able to withstand challenges from federalist and collaborators or splits without result to conflict.

The mobilisation must be related to the structure of changes colonisers under taken in Baluchistan for example, genocide, forced disappearances, control over resources, demographic changes, economical policy, land ownership, religious, cultural, linguistic discrimination these actions of the states are the matter of concern for every Baluch everywhere.

Attempt by states to extend their support by device such as briberies and intimidation, forced disappearances, assassinations, should forced national struggle into more popular politics.

Once the nationalist movement organised itself against states institution of occupied state and it succeeded to take power at a territorial level than it would has better idea of itself and the future independent Baluchistan. the idea of democratised version of independent Baluchistan more legitimise the nationalist claim to independent, the democratic nation state represents the ideal and normal unit of political community.

The nationalist movement can be seen as expression of the specialised functions of which the state as public realm based and hold the modernity in the heart.

Nationalist can be seen as struggle to express certain ideals and actions which join the two different sphere of activity together. It should develop from the upward movement of variety of local conflicts within Baluch society and coordinated system to the occupied Baluchistan level.

The nationalist movement must develop specialised political forms which enable it to negotiate with the external and external powers in these way it take on a political character appropriate to politics in the modern state. It invests its political with images and expressions which enable it to claim to stand for the interests of the Baluch people.

The Baluch nationalist movement is not simply a modern political movement aiming to take state power. It is also a movement seeks to preserve it hold upon the Baluch people and claim a state for the Baluch people.

The nationalist movement should not cling on tribalism, because the coloniser may impede nationalist progress through tribal chieftain, yet nationalism is not incompatible with factional and tribal. It is upon the nationalist movement to build territorial nationalist movement. The nationalism is a way to combine traditions and modern politics and the effort must be taken seriously because the balance between collaborators and nationalist breakdown with assumption of independence.

The individual autonomy and national right to self determination and man right to choose one destiny has wakened colonial rules. The Baluch national struggle for liberation is a legitimate and it’s up to colonial forces to cease their colonial ambition and recognise Baluch historical right as free and independent nation.

An Independent Baluchistan is a legitimate alternative and universal claim that nation must have state in order to protect their national identity and national interest. An Independent Baluchistan provides security to Baluch people and provides stability to south Asia.

M.Sarjov is a political activist based in London

No nationalist movement can be based purely on sentiments.

2011-11-02T09:07:00.001-07:00

No nationalist movement can be based purely on sentiments. The most successful nationalist movements have been built upon variety of interests. These interests will not diminish the role of nationalist.

It would a mistake to think that a powerful political movement can solely based on a sentiment. It is also wrong to dismiss the role of nationalist in imaging a movement fuelled by commitment to the nationalist vision.

Ideology could play an important role. Nationalist ideology co-ordinate actions among political elites mobilise popular support and legitimise political movement. Ideology provides inspiration and clarity, without that effective political actions could be difficult. The ideology perform a role in conflicts and mobilise the groups to take a part in conflict otherwise have no interest in politic.

Nationalists can play a role in helping to co-ordinate the efforts of various Baluch liberal elites to establish a strong movement for the national liberation.

The liberal nationalist can shape the character and language of nationalist. Once liberal nationalist have changed the character and language of the nationalist conflict, the nationalist conflict will continue even interstate, region conflicts are settled and supper powers make it to come to the end.

Some political parties and individuals allowed the states to outmanoeuvre the national struggle for independent and reluctant to play constructive parts to create a strong political movement. Some Baluch political leaders have never been engaged in the construction of the strong Baluch national liberation movement, their engagement with nationalist have always been continuation of purely sentiment commitment. They are obsessed with unity, but their unity is not substitute for building up a popular movement to challenge the occupation and outside rules.

It is moral and proper judgment to struggle for liberation and unification of Baluchistan.

M.Sarjov

Three functions play important roles within the Baluch struggle for the independence.

2011-10-29T09:20:00.000-07:00

Baluchistan has a rich history the Baluchistan invasion and occupation has been well documented. Many external powers accept that the entire Baluchistan is an occupied and divided land and the Baluch claim to independent is legitimate claim. It is up to Baluch to claim their independent. One has to understand that external powers have no problem to recognise current boundaries, if Baluch cannot mobilise their power to claim their land for themselves and challenge the legitimacy of the Iranian and Pakistan rules.

Three functions play important roles within the Baluch struggle for the independence.

A) Coordination play in bringing together diverse political and interests groups into a single movement, by providing each group with a unity of a reason.

B) Mobilisation brings new groups into the struggle for liberation, otherwise have no interest in politic, and provide them with political objectives and explanation.

C) Legitimisation present an acceptable image of the independent Baluchistan to the world.

The Coordination brings groups together mobilise popular political action persuade insider and outsiders to provide sympathy and supports. The struggle for independence argument must be rational. The assessment of the struggle for independence depends upon the relative importance of the coordination, mobilisation, and legitimisation.

The struggle for independent must obtain external support and have to play a part in the internal organisation of the national movement in order to obtain and organise popular support. In the Baluch struggle for independent the mobilisation function is very important, because the Baluch nation is divided in tribes and regional and there are tribal and regional rivalry among tribal as well as educated elites, secondly Baluchistan is sparsely populated.

M.Sarjov

Where is the National Party and Baluchistan national party standing?

2011-10-27T15:53:00.000-07:00

Death eventually come to us all, but some people die for the Baluch nation glory and country, some people die for personal monetary gain.

The BNP and NP activists have been actives for the wrong reasons. It has been established again and again the NP and BNP are the part of colonial rule in Baluchistan. Senators, city administrators, parliamentarian under the foreigner rules, are the colonial subordinators. They cannot be the part of independence struggle unless the give up the state privileges, they have a claim to be a nationalist, but they are dishonest with their fantasy supporters, ethnicity for them is the votes bank nothing more.

Baluchistan has been divided and occupied by the force, only the force could liberate the nation that is stronger or more organised, and backed by legitimate claim and supported by the Baluch masses and external interests. So far the NP and BNP leaderships have not been the force of the mobilisation for Baluch national good. There is always a right time for the struggle for independence.

One should give up personal ambition, for the national glory. The Pakistan security forces are killing the Baluch they do not recognise the internal division among the Baluch; they kill whoever they think is the immediate and long term threat to Pakistan colonial rule.

The NP and BNP elites are nationalists as long as nationalism is the source to put them in power. They have no objection as long as nationalism claims serve their purpose; they distance themselves from nationalism when the nationalist claim the separate state of their own.

The NP and BNP as the organisations never support independent Baluchistan, they are well aware from the fact that they may lose the positions they are holding in undivided Pakistan. They have played the public sentiments for their advantages well, but the nationalist consciousness demands homeland, the BNP has been slow to react to the public demands.

The state, Pakistan has created calibrators in order to enforce Punjabi colonial rules, the Baluch tax collectors, DCO, Intelligence police, judiciary, police and army officers subordinated the Punjab colonial rules in Baluchistan. Police, judiciary, army, tax collectors are the instruments of suppression.

They are the state agents, the state cannot maintain it rule over the Baluch without the BNP, NP’ calibration and active support. The BNP provide legitimacy for Pakistan rule on Baluch and also claim to struggle for the Baluch causes at the same time, which side they are honest independent Baluchistan or Pakistan?

The BNP has more side kicker than the NP. BNP has established some connection with the Arab states. The Arab Gulf States the only countries remains to support Pakistan unconditionally. The connection with the Arab could be a lucrative business deal if the BNP would have elected to the chief ministerial position. The BNP has succeeded where Pakistan failed in dividing the Baluch Diasporas. The Arab already shown interest in the oil drilling in Baluchistan may have already working on small projects.

The NP is trusted by Pakistan establishment, but the NP lacks the confidence and legitimacy in the Baluch public eyes, the NP has always been subservient and provides verbal legitimacy to Pakistan rule. The NP has a tall claim to be a progressive political organisation, but it is not honest claim they are third world communist leftover from Soviet Union with the strong tribal amalgam.

The BNP had been in power and as an organisation can raise funds and has financed well organised covert campaign against the Baluch struggle for independence. The BNP and NP are willing to go a long way to discredit the struggle for independence unless the leaderships were restrained by its activists.

The BNP has bought the loyalty and willing to do it again among greedy activists who are willing to turn jacket as the good Pakistan do all the times. The BNP is clever and experienced enough to create enough confusion and the NP with Pakistani journalists from Baluchistan will be there to provide propaganda against the struggle for independent.

Be aware from the BNP snake charmer.

M.sarjov

Stop victimising the victim.

2011-10-14T12:39:00.001-07:00

A Homeland show where a nation lives the Baluch know they are belong to the Baluch nation, share memories, culture language, the history connect the Baluch to Baluchistan. Baluchistan is priceless for Baluch, members make scarifies for homeland and communal identity.

In the Baluch culture one cannot bestow, the land, and dignity ( hya O Zameen pa roh, ryah dyag nabant) . One would accept form a Baluch choose a death instead of life when it comes to land and dignity. Baluch lives with its own values.

One could hide behind many false facets pretend to be modern in order to demoralise the struggle for independent. The struggle for independent Baluchistan is morally justified nationally, internationally. People give their life in order to empower the nation. The Baluch take part in the freedom movement knowing well he/she lose the life, but still decide to take part because they values freedom. One must be out of touch to condemn these brave man and women of Baluchistan.

No one can deny the Baluch statehood. The Baluch collective desire for independent will prevail; the Baluch accept no less than complete independence and wiling to take every avenue to achieve that independent. No one and not a group of people are powerful enough to conspire with external forces to bring down the struggle for independence. The Baluch are the victim of colonial rule as well as post colonial state system. Stop victimising the victim.

M. Sarjov

The western Baluchistan has been subject to repeated Persian policies of Persianzation,

2011-09-20T13:28:00.000-07:00

An attempt to keep the Baluch nation in chain and divide Baluchistan among looters is morally and theoretically unstable and politically unsustainable. That is true the post colonial states have developed a technique to maintain the artificial boundaries. The problem for Iran and Pakistan is that the states boundaries not sustainable.

If the Baluch come to the international community under the heading of a nation they get nothing other than the article 27 rights; the current UN frame work provide no incentive for the Baluch to identify themselves as a nation inside another states. Because a nation is entitle to an independent state.

The western Baluchistan has been subject to repeated Persian policies of Persianzation, including the suppression of Baluchi language rights, renaming towns and villages to wipe out evidence of Baluch history and settlement policies that attempt to swamp the Baluchistan with Persian settlers.

Some Baluch have gone to the United Nations working group on minorities to complain that their rights as nation minority inside Iran are not respected. But the united nation does not recognise Baluch as a nation having any distinctive right. Would they re-label their identity that time will tell?

The stateless people under the UNPO are debating to redefine their status as an indigenous people to gain some international protection. The international community never recognise the Baluch right to national self determination. Unless Baluch nation uses national self determination as powerful tool to mobilise members to defend their claim to independent state and develop a power to destabilise a state.

M.Sarjov

The Iranian securitized the Baluch issue

2011-09-03T10:51:00.000-07:00

The people of western Baluchistan are ethnically Baluch, religiously Sunni. Iran is Shiite majority state ruled according to Shiite doctrine or supreme Shiite religion leader wishes. The people of western Baluchistan historically belong to once was the tribal confederation of Baluchistan. Western Baluchistan historically is not part of Iran. The Iranian forces invaded Baluchistan in 1927.

Iran feels unsecure in geo-political terms, fearful of their neighbours and faraway countries. Iranian treatment of Baluch to some extent is heavily shaped by this sense of insecurity. Iran never voluntarily handover rights and powers to Baluch, if Persian dominated Iran think that this will increases the Baluch nation confidence that share history, language and ethnicity with Eastern and northern Baluch and share religion with the Shiite arch enemy Saudi Arabia.

Iranian sees the Baluch as a fifth column, working for the neighbouring and far away enemies. Relations between the Iranian and Baluch are seen as a matter of national securities in which the Iranian has limited the normal discussion to ignore the Baluch mere existence.

The Baluch nation self organisation is illegal; the Baluch political leaders are killed exiled and religious leader are under police surveillance, raising any demand is illegal. Iran is ruled by a theocratic regime, but Iranian denies the Baluch the right to build a warship places in capital and Persian majority cities and limit their religious activities in their own homeland. The application to building a mosque in Tehran the capital of state has been rejected by the state and largely not tolerated by Persian.

The Iranian securitized the Baluch issue. The Baluch legitimate demand is the security issue for Persian. The securitization of Baluch demand has eroded the demands, and there is no chance demands will be accepted by the state.

Baluch is a nation determined for the unity of Baluch population to have a free state, a government solely of its own, for the exercise of a legitimate power and proper organisation for societies in Baluchistan.

The love for ones country is a rational, since the earth is the common habitat of human race, the prudent man should be a citizen of the world. But man also has a duty more pressing that toward the particular society with which the individual is linked by social contract. Without knowing it one is so strongly joined to ones country, one cannot isolate nor separate oneself from it without feeling a pain of ones mistake. The good of society is ones good.

M.sarjov is a political activist based in London,

One wonder how does the American or European states explain the financial and diplomatic support given to Pakistan

2011-08-10T05:32:00.000-07:00

Assassination is no longer recognised as instrument of a state policy anywhere in the civilised world. But in the Pakistani’s and Iranian states it has been approved and practiced every day by the respective states authority as the states policy.

The crimes committed against Baluch in the name of preserving the artificial states; the question should be asked, is the killing and oppression of the Baluch people justifying the preservation of artificial states that nobody want. The conduct of Pakistani government should be judged by the same standard as the conduct of the United States, or European governmenst toward their citizens if we assume that the human are equal.

The Baluch are not less human; allowance of inhuman method against Baluch is not acceptable. In today’s Pakistan state authorities as well as religious moral has collapsed. The elites and army generals ambitions forced diverse nations to live together otherwise would have lived improved and stable lives in their respective states, each with its own language and custom, one would be more cultivated less war like than the others, one nation may less or more dominated by feudal lord, or religious.

Millions Baluch are facing inhuman condition and treated second or third class citizens, thousands are tortured and their dead bodies are dumped on the roads side and yet no one made a single demonstration against these atrocities.

One wonder how does the American or European states explain the financial and diplomatic support given to Pakistan, that kills it own people support terrorist, encourage war against American and European are supporting the states that forces it own citizens to kill or be killed. The leftist and Islamic dominated organisations in London demonstrated in thousands in support of terrorist, but failed to demonstrate against genocide committed by Islamic republic of Pakistan and Iran against the secular minded Baluch people in Baluchistan.

The great civilization produces a good government, the Persian and Punjabi civilizations brought the pain and suffering to the Baluch.

M.sarjov is a political activest based in London,

American should know that by now Pakistan problem cannot be fixed

2011-08-01T00:55:00.001-07:00

Ladies and gentlemen

Today we are gathered here in front of the United States embassy in London not as opposition to war on terror led by United States. The Baluch have been the victim of terrorist states of Islamic republic of Pakistan as well as Iran.

Pakistan has been terrorising its own citizen for more than half century. There is no single day goes by without recovery of a dead body of a Baluch from roadside, mountain or wasteland. Pakistan has been the leading state on promoting universal Jihad against Jews, Christian and Hindu.

In the Islamic republic of Pakistan human life and individual dignity has no value. They have violated individual dignity, they have removed state protection from an individual Baluch as well as they violated an individual right to life.

Pakistan is supplying the manpower and military and logistic support to Jihadi groups who are willing to fight American and British in Afghanistan. Every terrorist crime in Europe and the united state has been planed in Pakistan. We believe with out active support of Pakistan and Iran terrorist could not flourished.

The United States and European states have been financing the artificial state that is prolonging people suffering. the united state has financed Pakistan army in return Pakistan army trained the Taliban who are killing American and British solders and terrorising the Afghan and killing the Baluch.

Pakistan is a failed state it cannot maintain itself without American support and American and European tax payer deserve better from their governments to be protected by their governments by stop founding terrorist state Pakistan.

We are asking the United States to stop financing the terrorist out fit Pakistan and declare the Pakistan army as a terrorist organization. Pakistan has taken the world hostage for the sake of the world security and regional stability let together correct the historical wrong doing and remove the threats of fundamentalist from the world and region forever.

American should know that by now Pakistan problem cannot be fixed because Pakistan Jihadi quest is not wealth creation but the destruction of democracy and human values.

M.Sarjov is a political activist based in London,

To avoid the evil of defeat nationalist in Baluchistan must open a field of activity that is within a limit of local activist’s capacity

2011-07-14T06:42:00.000-07:00

The generation which was born after our generation is passionate, fair, and restless. They have been raised in constants turmoil, and lives in daily expectation of change sceptical of stability of past, looking for new excitement.

Behind both generations is the past destroyed for ever, but the older generations are agitated over its ruins, with all the centuries of absolutism; in front of us the dawn of an immense horizon, the day break of the future; between us these two world, the gulf which divides the old world from the young’s world. Dance with the same tune cannot be resumed where it stop since Pakistani military started genocide in Baluchistan called anything one likes, but with every human standard it is genocide.

The industrial revolution accompanied by increase in population has penetrated everywhere, has transformed the methods of production, has disturbed tradition social relations and created enormous urban mass population.

New wealth has been created. New social classes struggling for the niche, they are coming to the top they claims and obtains their share of political power. To the new social classes politic present itself different from that of absolute religious and chieftain in their hand laid the destiny of Baluchistan. Tribal chieftain family relations and combinations extended beyond Baluchistan regardless of culture and linguistic boundaries and they have been powerful to decide the fate of Baluchistan. New social classes have no such ties to confirm their loyalty.

The Persian and Pakistanis doing their best, the old settlement that the British devised and they improved would last, but turmoil and inescapable social changes may acts together or separately have threatened the old system of social control, governance and states, in the end they will breakup the states. Those who wish to oppose new generation and newly rising social classes in Baluchistan do so; on no account people will accept the rulers and rules imposed on people who have not been consulted and that three parts of Baluchistan is naturally one and artificially divided. No ancient dynastic claim had any claim to stand in the rational and natural right of the Baluch people.

South Asia is destined to a long period of instability. Pakistan and Iran to some extend United Nations member states have done their best to ensure that the current settlement in Baluchistan in which the British devised to survive, but turmoil bestows from Baluch nationalist will challenged states boundaries.

The impatience of the new generation for freedom and political method in which they introduced headed to space where was forbidden to pervious generation. Nation desires for freedom freeing themselves from yoke.

To avoid the evil of defeat nationalist in Baluchistan must open a field of activity that is within a limit of local activist’s capacity; force the states into unfamiliar method of conflicts. Secure the national struggle from betrayal. The National struggle for independence has to have an advantage on not confining struggle within win and lose operations.

Only agitation of student not leads to independence. The independence will be achieved by persistence of masses who thinks it is worth while to go into war in order to liberate oneself from yoke of foreign occupations.

It is possible to achieve independent in Baluchistan with favourite influence of others forces beyond Baluchistan borders and region. Arab played the French and British powers in their favour against co-religion ottoman.

For the Baluch to maintain the colonial lingering Pakistan and Shiite Empire of Iran is a ridiculous and useless. The Baluch quest for independent is transformation from ex-colonial and Persian dynastic and Shiite theocracy rules to a nation-hood on the bases of national self determination. The new generation is exposed to the new idea and has leant the enlightenment. The rejection of new ideal and enlightenment will widen gulf between dominator and dominated. Baluch can and will not deny themselves their language and culture.

National struggle mostly is the struggle of new as much as old generation to satisfy their needs to fulfil their forefathers’ unfinished struggle for an independent homeland for the Baluch people. The Baluch need is to be together in a stable community for common good and regional stabilities.

M.Sarjov is a London based political activist,

The movement for an independence Baluchistan has never disappeared

2011-07-09T04:27:00.000-07:00

The ethnic groups in Iran territorially separated and the ethnic divisions are prominent, the case of ethnically inspired uprising is strong. The classic case is Baluchistan, a region populated with the Baluch people previously was a part of a sovereign state Baluchistan (1872) divided and combined into five Iranian administrated units.

I believe the fundamental ethnic conflict cannot be bridged by Iranian constitutional rewriting, because Iranian has never governed their state by rules of law and constitutional supremacy. The long period of autocratic rules has radicalised the ethnic groups. For these reasons relation between groups and relation between groups and government are unbridgeable.

The movement for an independence Baluchistan has never disappeared. After the 1979 Islamic revolution the nationalist movement was overtake by the religious conflict, between Shiite Zaboli and Sunni Baluch.

Sistan and Baluchistan consist of two groups the Baluch Sunni majority and Zaboli Shiite minority in Baluchistan (Iran is a Shiite majority and bilingual and ethnically divided state) migrant (1904) brought into Sistan in order to reduce Baluch majority in the district of Sistan basin for military and political purpose. Today the province is administrated by minority Zaboli’s and they are over represented in every institution in the province.

The Baluch have no representation in the other four provinces where their land has been merged (1928). The dominance of the Shiite rule and other Persian in Baluchistan has weakened the representation of Baluch by these groups. The state sponsorship, coercion, and appointments to high places worked together to over represent the Shiite Persian. The most over represented people in Baluchistan are Zaboli’s. They are over represented in the security forces as well as judiciary and another economical institution.

Iran is consisted of many rival ethnic groups. But it is dominated by Persian and Turk, to secure the Turk loyalty they are strongly represented in the government institutions and army. To denial ethnic groups’ historical home land the state is carved into small administrated units with consequences that the ethnic groups are deprived permanently from the political power.

The theocratic rule, suppression, will transfer conflict from Baluchistan and Kurdistan region to the state level. There have been tensions over the allocation of resources and other benefits between Turk and Persian in the capital Tehran. The Baluch and the Arab have demanded creation of their own separate states, Kurd and Turk will shift their demand from federalism to an independent. The Kurd and Turk have experienced considerable ethnic tensions against each others.

The Zabolis Shiite minority in Baluchistan have benefited from centrally controlled state structure. Region is populated by large majority Baluch dispersed in the five administrative units with no representation they will fight back the injustices. Considering the Iranian internal and external phenomenon, it is possible for the Baluch to drive back Persian army and control their state. The violence is the product of longstanding Baluch frustration.

The regional autonomy or federalism,

The regional autonomy or federalism is unfair answer to self-determination and statehood. Fear of secession, Widespread a quest for an independent is difficult to dismiss, but federalism is not the answer. Federalism is for the central government to retain ultimate power over the Baluch.

The offer of an autonomy and federalism to the Baluch is possible in order to dismiss Baluch right to statehood and legitimate the occupation of Baluchistan by the Persian and Punjabi army of Pakistan and dispel the Baluch history for ever. The Baluch occupiers are willing to make concessions, only to solidify their power through creating a new central power inside Baluchistan.

The centre of power Pakistan has created in Quetta has failed, if the same attempt would have made by Persian will be unsuccessful. Because the Persian’s are not willing to give the smallest part of the power they have on Baluch away, Persian will revolts against whoever attempts to decentralise the power in Iran. A genuine decentralisation will be very unpopular among the Persian; a decision on decentralisation will fuse the Persian from different parties without risking their constituencies’ seats.

It is possible for the Persian to offer autonomy or federalism based on the character of nationalists uprising, but there is no guarantee, it is acceptable to the Baluch nationalist. Autonomy or federalism will be offered to Iranian ethnic groups after violence will have broken out. The success of secessionists will testify the weakness of Persian central power and fortify the secessionists will to fight on.

Tehran regime may devolve power to region without effect on secessionist. There is also chance that regional autonomy will reduce secessionist sentiment among unwilling secessionist. Federalism is very attractive if it is combined with policies whose effect has raised successful secessionist.

Secessionist is not attractive if it is mean abandonment of opportunities outside the home region. The Persian has opposed the Baluch separatism. The Persian has continued the practice of providing to Shiite villager from the Persian provinces with the opportunities in the administration, securities, business, in Baluchistan, while at the same time expending disproportionate fund on investment in their region in order to force them to settle permanently in Baluchistan.

On the other hand the Baluch population are not spread outside the Baluch region; they are not in lucrative opportunities and investment or the government subsidies that the Baluch would lose if they opted out from Iran. Iranian has failed to take any measure to specific interests that the Baluch have in undivided Iran.

M. Sarjov is a Baluch political activist based in London.

Humanity is divided into nations

2011-07-08T05:02:00.001-07:00

Humanity is divided into nations, that nations are recognised by certain characteristics that can be established, and that the only legitimate form of government is self-government. It has been said that men are born equal, in which they have a right to life, liberty, and pursue of happiness or the utilitarian argument that men are under two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure, that the best social arrangements are those which maximise pleasure and minimise pain.

The love for ones country is a rational, since the earth is the common habitat of human race, the prudent man should be a citizen of the world. But man also has a duty more pressing that toward the particular society with which the individual is linked by social contract. Without knowing it one is so strongly joined to ones country, one cannot isolate nor separate oneself from it without feeling pain of ones mistake. The good of society is ones good.

The loyalty to state depends on its capacity to ensure the well being of individual and the state function for benefits its citizens. The state must be a place where individuals can rest with their possessions, a field to sustain themselves, home to cover them. If the citizen of the state no longer agreed of the political pact of their society, they have a right and should have a power to replace them by others. No groups of men, no individual, can exercise power that does not originate from nation. The nation is sovereign.

Relations between Baluch and Iran, Pakistan were the outcome of historical accident of colonial arrangements regulated by the game of conflict somehow managed to produce a balance of power. Such balance of power has no basic virtues of its own and liable to frequent violence conflicts and serious breakdown between Baluch and states. The Iranian and Pakistani do not derive their sovereignty over Baluchistan from the Baluch nation, they are the occupiers and Baluch owe no allegiance to occupiers.

The Baluch people do not shares Iran and Pakistan sovereignty, the union of Baluch and Iranian, and Pakistani has no legitimacy by virtue of the apparent will of the Baluch. Iran and Pakistan must be deprived from the powers to enforce their ambitions and views on Baluch as well as their weaker nations. The will of nation must override the unlawful claims of Iran and Pakistan on Baluchistan.

Self-determination,

Man continuous quest is to determine him-self as free being, self ruling, self motivated and the quest for perfection. Man has to be free in order to lean how to use his power’s freely and rationally. At the first effort may be violent, may bring more pain then he was under the orders of foreign occupiers. However one never develops into reason except through his own experience, one has to be free in order to be able to attain experience. People are prepared to accept violence in order to benefits from a self- government. An autonomous individual recognise no limits, the only limits are self-imposed limits. Free man’s will rules a fate, free man affirm himself against the world; by the strength of his belief he bends the world to his will, free man can move mountains.

M.Sarjov is a political activist based in London,

Recalling-baloch-history

2011-06-18T09:33:00.000-07:00

Recalling Baloch history
By Yaqoob Khan Bangash
Published: June 14, 2011
The writer is a historian at Keble College, University of Oxford
The recent deplorable killing of Professor Saba Dashtiari is yet another episode in Baloch history rooted in the creation and consolidation of Pakistan. Much of the current discussion of today, and of the last six decades, fails to take into cognisance the history behind the Baloch national struggle.
The Baloch are a very peculiar social organism with their secularity and their strong tribal networks and leadership. These factors meant that in the 1940s the Islamic rhetoric of the Muslim League failed to make an impact on the Baloch. The only strong political party in the area was the Kalat State National Party (KSNP) which was nationalist and secular in its outlook and aligned with the Congress. The KSNP took its cue from the Khan of Kalat, Ahmed Yar Khan, who, with some historical justification, claimed that Kalat was never a part of India. The British never accepted this claim but Jinnah unequivocally accepted it and signed an agreement to the effect on August 11, 1947. Satisfied by this agreement, the Khan established two houses of parliament in October 1947 to ascertain the will of the people concerning the future of the state. While not ‘democratic’ in the modern sense, the Darul Awam (House of Commons) and Darul Umara (House of Lords) were broadly representative of public opinion in the state.
The debates in these houses were a clear indication of the aspirations of the Baloch and Brahui people. Ghaus Bakhsh Bizenjo, the leader in the Darul Awam, clearly stated: “We have a distinct civilisation… We are Muslims but it is not necessary that by virtue of being Muslims we should lose our freedom and merge with others. If the mere fact that we are Muslims requires us to join Pakistan, then Afghanistan and Iran should also amalgamate with Pakistan”. We are ready to have friendship with that country on the basis of sovereign equality but by no means [are we] ready to merge with Pakistan…” The Baloch knew that under accession their separate identity and unique heritage was being threatened; they only wanted alignment with Pakistan, not accession.
Unfortunately, Pakistan rejected the legitimate concerns of the Baloch. Pakistan never treated Kalat as a non-Indian state and insisted on unconditional accession. To attain this objective, the Pakistani government used several ploys, including the buying off of Kalat state feudatories (Kharan and Las Bela) through lavish privy purses, and the elevation of the Gichki sardar of Mekran — a Kalat district sardar — to princely status. The end result of these machinations, including a threat of military action, was that the Khan acceded to Pakistan in March 27, 1948.
As expected, public reaction against the accession was strong and the brother of the Khan, Abdul Karim, repudiated the accession and led the first of many insurgencies against Pakistan. The rest of Baloch history is a litany of broken promises, threats and repression by the government. In July 1948, Abdul Karim was induced to return on an assurance of amnesty, but the promise was immediately broken. The later story of Nauroz Khan is now a legend in Balochistan. Since then — in 1958, 1977 and now — the Baloch have articulated their grievances through an armed revolt, since the government refuses to listen to their concerns.
It is high time that successive governments stop treating the Baloch insurgency as a law and order problem and assess it in its historical context. The government needs to come to the negotiating table with respect for the distinctiveness and autonomy of the Baloch, a clear remorse for the repression of yester years, and bring to an end the divide and rule game in the province. The solution to the Baloch issue will not be easy, but it needs to be tackled now or else even going back to the drawing board might not convince the Baloch to stay in Pakistan.
Published in The Express Tribune, June 15th, 2011

Philosophy of Language, Interpretation, and Translation

2011-06-06T08:30:00.000-07:00

On the Origin from 1772 is Herder's best known work in the philosophy of language. However, it is in certain respects unrepresentative and inferior in comparison with other works, such as the Fragments and On the Cognition, and should not monopolize attention.

On the Origin is primarily concerned with the question whether the origin of language can be explained in purely natural, human terms or (as Süßmilch had recently argued) only in terms of a divine source. Herder argues in support of the former position and against the latter. His argument is quite persuasive (especially when supplemented on its positive side from the Fragments). But this argument is unlikely to constitute a modern philosopher's main reason for interest in Herder's views about language — deriving its zest, as it does, from a religious background that is, or should be, no longer ours.

Of far greater modern relevance are three related theories which Herder develops: a philosophy of language concerning the very nature of language, thought, and meaning; a theory of interpretation; and a theory of translation. These theories are found scattered through a large number of Herder's works. The following are their main features:

Philosophy of language: language, thought, meaning. Already in the mid-1760s — for example, in On Diligence in Several Learned Languages (1764) and the Fragments (1767-8) — Herder began advancing three fundamental theses in this area:

(1) Thought is essentially dependent on, and bounded in scope by, language — i.e. one can only think if one has a language, and one can only think what one can express linguistically. (To his considerable credit, Herder normally refrains from a more extreme, but philosophically untenable, version of this thesis, favored by some of his successors, which simply identifies thought with language, or with inner language.)
(2) Meanings or concepts are to be equated — not with the sorts of items, in principle autonomous of language, with which much of the philosophical tradition has equated them, e.g. the referents involved, Platonic forms, or empiricist ideas, but instead — with usages of words.

(3) Conceptualization is intimately bound up with (perceptual and affective) sensation. More precisely, according to what might be called Herder's quasi-empiricist theory of concepts, sensation is the source and basis of all our concepts, but we are able to achieve non-empirical concepts by means of a sort of metaphorical extension from the empirical ones — so that all of our concepts ultimately depend in one way or another on sensation. (On the Cognition contains one of Herder's clearer statements of this position.)
The first two of these theses dramatically overturned the sort of dualistic picture of the relation between language and thought/meaning that had predominated during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, and thereby essentially founded the philosophy of language as we still know it today.

Hamann has often been credited with introducing something like these two revolutionary theses and then passing them on to Herder (e.g. by Berlin). But that is a mistake; Herder was already committed to them in the mid-1760's, Hamann only much later and under Herder's influence. The third thesis, quasi-empiricism, would be far less widely accepted by philosophers today. However, it may very well be correct too (contrary to first appearances, it need not conflict with thesis (2), the equation of meanings with word-usages; and the most likely modern ground for skepticism about it, a Fregean-Wittgensteinian anti-psychologism concerning meaning that is popular today, may well be mistaken). In addition to making a fundamental contribution to the philosophy of language, these three theses also underpin Herder's theories of interpretation and translation (as we are about to see).

Baranzai ruler of western Baluchistan

2011-06-01T05:32:00.001-07:00

Baranzai ruler of western Baluchistan had contact with German before and during the First World War. But those contacts with German were the only help they could get from the outsider. The Baranzai had good reasons to regard the British Empire as an enemy. The British had divided their country in three pieces.

The Persian had no forceful, legitimate claim on western Baluchistan, and they had not had an adequate military power to conquer and maintain their conquest on the Baluch land for considerably time without the British help. The British legitimised their claim on western Baluchistan and defeated the Baluch forces.

Baranzai were inward looking power which rose from people, 1n the 1914-18 Bahram Khan Baranzai united the small Baluch cities states under different rulers under the united Baluchistan government.

The Baranzai and tribal chieftains, rulers of small cities states of western Baluchistan had vision they had imagination they succeeded to put their imagination into practice.

If the Baluch had international support and the Persian lost the war in the battle of Kahn Daood and Kala Dazzik in the 1928 the Baluch may had chance to maintain their independent in the western Baluchistan.

M.sarjov

China's Port in Pakistan?

2011-05-29T03:28:00.000-07:00

BY ROBERT D. KAPLAN | 27.05.2011Pakistani officials have announced that the Chinese look favorably on taking over the operation of the Arabian Sea port of Gwadar close to the entrance of the Strait of Hormuz, and perhaps building a naval base for the Pakistanis there as well. The Chinese have apparently contradicted these claims, indicating that they have made no such decisions on these matters.
The fact that Pakistan should want deeper Chinese involvement with this strategically located port, even as the Chinese are hesitant to do just that, should surprise no one. Gwadar is where dreams clash with reality.
The Chinese have already invested $200 million in building a modern port in Gwadar. Furthermore, a presence of some sort at Gwadar makes estimable sense for Beijing in the abstract. China faces what has been called a "Malacca dilemma." It is too dependent on the narrow and congested Strait of Malacca between Indonesia and Malaysia for its oil and natural gas shipments from the Middle East to Chinese ports.

Thus, China has been engaged in port-building projects in Pakistan and Burma, which, someday, may be linked by roads and energy pipelines directly to China. Besides offering an alternative route for energy supplies, such new ports will be the 21st-century equivalent of 19th-century British coaling stations for China's budding maritime empire spanning the Indian Ocean. Once China has developed a blue-water navy to protect its sea lines of communications, it will require port access along the global energy interstate that is the Indian Ocean. For Pakistan's part, a robust Chinese presence at Gwadar would serve to check India's own strategic ambitions, as Islamabad leverages Beijing against New Delhi.
The problem is that these are all long-range plans -- and dreams. They conflict with messy ground-level realities. Visiting Gwadar for a week in 2008, I was struck not only by how isolated it was, between pounding sea and bleak desert, but how unstable was the region of Baluchistan, which lies immediately beyond the port in all landward directions. Ethnic Baluchi rebel leaders told me that they would never permit roads and pipelines to be built there, until their grievances with the Pakistani government in faraway Islamabad were settled.
The security situation is indeed fraught with peril. The Chinese know this. They know that a pipeline network from Gwadar into Central Asia and China must await the political stabilization of Afghanistan -- and Pakistan, too. Until such a day, Gwadar, while a potentially useful coaling station for a budding Chinese navy, constitutes, in essence, a road to nowhere.
Bottom line: The Chinese may be as frustrated and aghast at the dysfunction of the Pakistani state as are the Americans. Yes, they built the port, with hopes of using it someday. But it seems from their latest statements that they have reservations for the moment. True, they seem to have moved closer to Pakistan to take advantage of Islamabad's estrangement from Washington in the wake of the killing of Osama bin Laden, but they are nevertheless still being cautious. And the caution, I believe, comes not from a lack of geopolitical ambition regarding Gwadar, but from the present security situation in Pakistan, with a government that frankly cannot control its own territory, whether it be the lawless frontier with Afghanistan, or Baluchistan.
Furthermore, just as the Pakistanis want to use China as a bulwark against India, China -- while not shying away from strategic competition with India -- must at the same time be careful not to unduly antagonize India. For China is building or upgrading ports not only in Pakistan and Burma, but in Bangladesh and Sri Lanka, too. The point must be emphasized that it is unclear exactly what China intends for these Indian Ocean ports -- China's so-called "String of Pearls." India already feels surrounded by China and has greatly enlarged its own naval base at Karwar, in the country's south, partly in response to Chinese construction work in Gwadar. Given that India and China may soon constitute the world's largest bilateral trading relationship, China must tread carefully. After all, it has always claimed to its neighbors that its rise is benevolent and non-hegemonic.
Indeed, Gwadar is important: not for what it is today, but for what it will indicate about Beijing's intentions in the coming years and decades.
F.P
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/05/27/chinas_port_in_pakistan?sms_ss=twitter&at_xt=4de1fe473e9b75fa,1

humanity have believed in so many false things

2011-05-13T12:29:00.001-07:00

Those Baluch who found our institutions, political party and leaderships unsuited to pursue Baluchistan’ independence does not dare to say so; they have never questioned excellence of leaderships by cultivated men, by men of acknowledged intellect.
Superstition and ancestral wisdom has fallen into decay. The Baluch people have grown familiar with the concept that our laws, if there is any, and institutions are not product of intellect, but colonial corruption based on religious and old tribalism.
The changes have to be made in our institutions the interest and future of our society and our unity depend on these changes.
The movements are not headed by those who started them, but by those who know how to compromise between various opinions old and new. One may notice what is false, but also does not know the true. One must be in position to substitute in the place of what one take away.
I have no desire to undervalue the Baluch values, but humanity have believed in so many false things, believed to be true, they have ceased to be true.
Sarjov

Culture, Language and Economic Development in Context of Balochistan

2011-05-06T04:17:00.000-07:00

The elements that make up any culture are contingent to conditions of life. They are contingent to specific geographical location, to economic, legal, political and technological development. They are subject to change and transformation as these factors change. The dynamism, stagnation and adaptation of a culture to a new environment will also dependents on these contingent factors. Consequently, as people learn about the restrictive aspects of their culture, they would remove these barriers and substitute them with more progressive ones. In this way you will have a culture that develops organically. This approach is a more judicious and democratic way of dealing with the archaic and destructive toxics of a culture. A culture that moves forward by the means of its own internal necessities in an open and free environment will serves the interest of its own people. In contrast, a culture dictated by an occupying state and establishment tend to serve their interest and supremacy. http://www.balochwarna.com/modules/articles/article.php?id=2217

U.S. Enables Pakistan's Oppression of Balochistan

2011-05-05T17:02:00.000-07:00

Michael Hughes

When NATO vaticinated that Muammar Gaddafi was on the cusp of filicide U.S. leaders felt morally obligated to bomb Libya -- a double standard of historic proportions considering they've stood idly by while Pakistan conducts systemic slaughter in Balochistan province in what historian Selig Harrison has described as "slow-motion genocide."
Unfortunately, America's sins go beyond silent complicity for the Pakistani state has misused billions in U.S. military aid (belied by its harboring of the world's most wanted terrorist) and has used U.S. military hardware -- including F-16s, Cobra helicopters and CIA listening devices -- to oppress the Baloch people on a daily basis, an oppression that features emotionally torturous tactics such as what the Baloch refer to by the literal euphemism "kill and dump" along with enforced disappearances at a clip that rivals Pinochet's Chile, with over 10,000 Baloch gone missing who are either dead or holed up in Pakistani detention centers in locations unknown.
I was apprised of these horrors last week at the First Balochistan International Conference in Washington, D.C. held at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Dr. Wahid Baloch, President of the Baloch Society of North America (BSO-NA), granted me the privilege of speaking about how the U.S.-Pakistani "special relationship" has caused the Baloch an egregious amount of undue suffering driven by the nexus between military rule and Islamic extremism.
Aghast, I was listening to a roster of brave and noble Baloch speakers catalog the crimes against humanity Pakistan's government has inflicted upon the Baloch people since 1948 -- the year their brief independence was lost when Balochistan was forcefully incorporated by the Punjabi military into a Pakistani nation, which six months prior had been fabricated by imperial Britain.
The Baloch have yearned for independence ever since, but their situation has been entirely ignored by the world community, overlooking how Balochistan qualifies for secession by every international measure available -- another example of the global elite turning its back on an indigenous people whose self-determination is being undermined.
Haphazardly cobbling together disparate ethnic groups that had never coexisted, the British crown formed Pakistan to achieve its Cold War objectives, seeing Pakistan as nothing more than a strategic military zone, landing pad and listening post. Since the country's founding the Punjabi elite have ruled the other provinces as if they were colonies, underlining the crux of the problem, which is Pakistan's inheritance of Britain's "viceregal tradition," which for Balochistan has translated into a permanent state of martial law.
Truth be told, Balochistan fared much better as a princely state, when it was known as Kalat, under indirect rule during the British Raj, compared to the brutality they live through today as a result of Pakistan's "hands on" approach to governance. Occasionally using the typical proxy Muslim extremist groups, Pakistan, for the most part, has cut out the middle man and, without conscience, has brought police state tactics to bear directly against the Baloch.
Pakistan's military and Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) have diabolically targeted the heart of the Baloch nationalist movement through the extrajudicial kidnapping, torture and assassination of journalists, human rights activists, young political workers, intellectuals and other of the cause's leadership.
Journalist Malik Siraj Akbar discussed the Pakistan government's pathetic attempts to rectify the situation, including Islamabad's plan to "reproduce" those missing. 15 months have elapsed since the empty promises were made with not one reappearance on record. As a matter of fact, no arrests have even been made -- as if people have vanished due to some unseen acts of nature, though the Baloch have witnessed activists whisked away in broad daylight by Pakistani security forces.
Balochistan has also been economically deprived by Islamabad. Though most of Pakistan's natural resources are located in Balochistan -- including natural gas, oil and minerals -- they are being usurped by the Pakistani state. Nearly 40% of Pakistan's gas is produced in the province yet the Baloch see a mere fraction of it.
Throughout the conference the speakers rightfully called upon the U.S. and international community to condemn the genocide and exploitation of Baloch resources. However, the members also asked for the UN to intervene to end the illegal occupation while some even suggested U.S. military support for the Baloch resistance might be a viable solution. I wasn't so sure.
I asked the gathered, in rhetorical fashion, if based on the history of Western intervention in the region they really wanted to experience America's idea of assistance. Although when cornered violence is a natural response, one must question whether militaristic reprisals have been successful in the least. I also reminded the group that U.S. foreign policy is at the root cause of the Islamic extremism that plagues the region, hence, the Baloch must be careful what they ask for.
With that being said, a number of nonviolent options do exist that the U.S. could and should undertake. For starters, silence is no longer an option. The U.S. and UN must recognize that Baloch disappearances, tortures and murders are occurring in the first place and must make Pakistan accountable for its pernicious acts. The U.S. must suspend all military aid to Pakistan, at once, and must ensure civilian aid packages are being equitably distributed.
The U.S. should support UN resolutions to establish Baloch independence, and the international community should work in tandem to pressure Pakistan, diplomatically, to agree to a balkanization of the region, which would establish Balochistan, Sindh and the Punjab as separate, standalone states while allowing Afghanistan to absorb the tribal areas to unite the Pashtun tribes.
The Western media can make an immediate impact by exposing the plight of the Baloch after years of neglecting to cover one of the biggest human rights tragedies of our time. Attempting to search the New York Times archives, for example, one is challenged to find an article over the past year that addresses the crisis adequately -- every story come across related to Balochistan is centered on Mullah Omar and the Quetta Shura. Then again, not that it's any excuse, but the state has impressively squelched media coverage within Pakistan itself, leaving many unaware of the severity of their government's transgressions.
By now, one would think the U.S. would have -- at least once -- included the aforementioned human rights violations as a talking point in their discussions with Islamabad, but they tread lightly cursed by the delusion that Pakistan is indispensable to U.S. national security objectives as American policymakers continue to adhere to an absurd "war on terror" policy which hinges upon a state sponsor of it.
Baloch independence would actually satisfy America's geopolitical interests, considering a free Balochistan would represent a beacon of democracy in a region run amok with Islamic fervor -- a secular counterweight, a society that believes in a traditional nonviolent version of Islam and a people that respect the natural rights of each individual.
The U.S. must act with prudence, using every weapon at its disposal within its diplomatic arsenal as opposed to the stale foreign policy paradigms of the past, because the goal is to help the Baloch break their chains, and typical Western militaristic approaches will only serve to keep them in bondage.
Michael Hughes writes similar articles for Examiner.com.

The demands for independent Baluchistan no longer can be ignored

2011-05-02T20:06:00.000-07:00

Each person puts himself and all his power in common under the direction of the common will, in a common capacity, the community member receive each member as inseparable part of whole community. This common corporation creates a moral and collective body, and receive from common unity its common identity.

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 the today’s world.

Before the arrival of British colonial power the Baluch lived in the state rule by the Baluch nationality.

The first incursion into Baluchistan by the British 1837,( Kalat Charles Massion) wrote; the territories of Mehrab Khan (Baluchistan) were dismembered and were annexed to dominion of the neighbouring state.

The British interest grew in Baluchistan during 1860-70 because of the British perception that the Russian might extend their territory southward. The British introduced a different dimension to internal tribal relationship.

(IOR/1/34/60 1934 on the constitutional history of the Kalat state); Keyes writes that the khan alone, who had British government jurisdiction and power of treaty and administer over most of tribal territory... he argued the necessities of frontiers required the obedience of the powerful Sardars to the British Indian government; the right and privilege of the Khan of Kalat were matter of less important to British. The British decentralised power and empowered the Tribal chiefs and reduced the Khan influence on the Baluch. The British introduced heredity tribal chiefdom.

Dr Inyatulla Baluch write in his book the problem of greater Baluchistan;

The British ignored all the evidences of certain areas, coming under the jurisdiction and influence of the Kalat state and gifted them away either to Iran or Afghanistan, in a bid to soothe the rulers in these countries and befriend them in anticipation of an attack from the Russian side. Baluch had to pay deadly for the selfish motives of the colonial rulers.

The British colonial power decided to divide Baluchistan under their control with Iran in 1870 and with Afghanistan 1896 and 1905. In 1871 major General Frederick Goldsmith was appointed chief commissioner of the joint Persian Baluch boundary and decision of the commission was not acceptable to the Baluch because the British were seen eager to persuade the Iranian away from Russia by gifting away some of Baluch territory.

The final demarcation of Persian and Baluchistan ignored the historical Baluchistan state and the principle of the right to self determination. Azand Khan of Kharan and western Baluchistan chiefs refused to acknowledge the Persian rules over the western Baluchistan and rose against British and Persian.

The Goldsmith line has no legitimacy in the Baluch eyes. The partition ignored the geography, culture, history and will of the people. The boundaries divided communities, and people. The Iranian regime has built a wall in order to divide people who are connected to each other by language, culture and blood relations.

The modern state must try to maintain security, as well as individual dignity and protect individual property and liberty. The state should create conditions in which profitable capital accumulation is possible, the state must provide free education and create and maintain social harmony.

The dignity, property and the Baluch life is not safe in the Iranian state. Assassinations and summary justice, Shiite judges, social stigma, collective humiliation, hanging people in groups in a public square and arrogant Persian elites are driving the Baluch into a desperate situation.

The people of western Baluchistan are ethnically Baluch, religiously Sunni. Iran is Shiite majority state. The Iranian invaded Baluchistan in 1927. Iranian government has openly used their coercive forces to subjugate Baluch nation.

The Baluch do not speak the state language, publication and education in Baluchi language is prohibited by the state even in private education. The Baluch cultural activity is either prohibited or confined to one’s home. The employability, security and self respect of individual hinge on their education. The Iranian has deprived Baluch from education instead of literacy the state indoctrinated theory of Jihad, and Persian myth making policies are taught.

The Baluch religion is different from the Persians; Baluch are discriminated on the bases of their religious as well as cultural beliefs. Most Iranian cities lack worship places for Sunni Muslims. The Baluch have remained at the bottom of the social hierarchy; there is no hope in sight.

We believe that no nation or state arrived by divine order. The Baluch people desire for self respect, personal worth and human dignity, equality, the human desire for independence. There is no conscious individual who does not desire the benefits of equality and joy of freedom, the Iranian have denied the Baluch all of the above.

An Independent Baluchistan could play host to a modern capital economy, it possess a large young population with the drive to work, natural resources in abundance, as well as a commercial route to central Asia.

Independence Baluchistan will ensure a large market for trade and investments. The Baluchistan territory possess it own natural resources in sufficient quantity, it could sustain Baluchistan population and transfer the state to manufacturing and developed area of the world.

Baluchistan can meet economical and political criteria that can furnish stable territorial state and mass culture has a central role to play in the security and stabilities in geo-political relations.

Pakistan and Iran have failed to meet the economical and political viabilities that could play in the great movement of history and their integration into the globalising market economy and their ideologies marked their imminent demise as states.

Baluch envisage an independent Baluchistan where every individual member is a citizen and there is assumed equality of citizens, in theory there is no intermediary mediating between citizens and the state.

Baluch nation are the legal political community as well as the historical cultural community. The nation is the source of all power; the individual must belong to a nation; each nation must express its genuine nature by being autonomous and that a world of peace and justice can only be built on autonomous nations.

Independent Baluchistan will be part and parcel of a wider international system on which the whole world is divided into separate nation and state. This system came into being in Europe after the Westphalia in 1648, the First World War, and the Second World War, decolonisation of Africa and Asia from European powers.

The economically interdependent world, cannot function unless people respect diversity and build unity through common bonds of humanity. The demands for independent Baluchistan no longer can be ignored by any states or by international community. Confrontation over the quest for independent Baluchistan is likely to grow, unless Iranian and Pakistani elite suspend their inherent right to colonization, and accommodate independent Baluchistan. Baluchistan is big and important; Baluch are here to stay, independent Baluchistan will contribute to the world peace and security.

Mehrab, sarjov is a political activist based in London.

Tribal and modern societies

2011-04-11T20:16:00.000-07:00

Tribal societies

Tribal societies are made up of small groups (clan) linked together in a kinship and similarities. The tribal societies have a structure that is a chief integrate clan into one body. The tribe produce social ties which are based on common beliefs and their social practices that rooted in religious laws.

The kinship creates similarities that unite the tribe. The members are considered as kin. Each of the clan may be distinguishable from the others and has different features. They share system of rules with the other clans, their form of social sanction and legends and mythologies.

The religious is an active social component. Beliefs are mainly religious in nature common conscience is rooted in religious. Collective rules social customs are predominantly religious in nature and encompass all sort of social life. The dominant social institution is the kinship groups and local activity forms the source of social unity.

The religious help to form a system of social customs that creates common practices that provide social unity. Tribesmen social personalities are defined by their religious beliefs. Their solidarity is primitive they share original characters, have similar values. Individuals are dependent on the tribal chiefs; collective power is invested with tribal chief. Offences against the collective beliefs of the tribes are punished by repressive law that act to restate the beliefs. Social ties are of obligatory, there is no individual autonomy. A social system that links individuals to a society is based on a custom, obligation and sentiment.

Modern societies

In modern societies population are spread out over a large geographical area. The social diversity is more developed than in the tribal societies. The division of labour has intensified, the social cooperation are replaced by individuals that performing separate functions. This changes the nature of social ties connecting individual to society.

The division of labour has increased more autonomous individuals and, however, more dependent on society for what they cannot produce themselves. The individuals social ties to society enforced by contract (law) rather than tribal customs or religious beliefs. The system of law based on addressing social wrong. Individual has autonomy and become objects of legal rights and freedom. In a secular and economic society the collective consciences are less resistance to changes. The minimum shared understandings between members create strong solidarity.

In the modern societies autonomous social organisation replace the tribal system. The modern social organisations are different from the tribal organisation in many ways. The social organisations are not organised in terms of similar tribe but are coordinated around parts that are related to each other and shaped around a central political organisation that exercise reasonable influence on the others. The central political organisation is not of the same social material as that formed tribal societies, and therefore these societies rest on principle of organisation that are opposite to tribal societies.

The modern societies have large population and there is loss immediacy between individuals and tribes. This loss of nearness leads to a reorganisation of the society forcing individual to perform special functions, which in turn changes the nature of their social links. The individual are connected by the occupation rather than kinship. Their place in society is marked by occupation not by family ties.

The tribal social material could be utilised as this takes place it causes the tribal societies to rearrange the dominant social principle. The tribal societies lose their resistance to changes, the modern societies transform tribal into one with division of labour.

M.Sarjov

2010 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices

2011-04-11T05:04:00.000-07:00

2010 Human Rights Report: Pakistan

Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor

2010 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices
There were no developments in the April 2009 killings of Baloch National Movement (BNM) President Ghulam Muhammad Baloch and Baloch Republic Party (BRP) members Sher Muhammad Baloch and Lala Munir Baloch in Turbat, Balochistan. They were abducted by men in civilian clothing from their lawyer's office on the same day that the antiterrorism court cleared them of charges of causing unrest. They were reportedly taken away in Frontier Corps vehicles. They were later found dead on April 8.
On August 23, in Uthal, Balochistan, assailants abducted and killed Central Joint Secretary of the BNM Rasool Bakhsh Mengal. According to the Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC), the BNM and other nationalist groups suspected that armed Frontier Constabulary or intelligence officials abducted Mengal and tortured him in military cells. His body was found hanging from a tree in Bela on August 31, with signs of apparent torture, including cigarette burns and words carved into his skin. His death sparked violence in Khuzdar and Makshay.
In September 2009, after two days of police questioning, Robert Fanish, a Christian detained on blasphemy charges, was found dead in his cell in a jail in Sialkot, Punjab. His family members and NGOs alleged that he died of police torture; the police maintained Fanish hanged himself. The Joint Action Committee for People's Rights, an alliance of more than 30 human rights groups, stated that witnesses saw marks of torture on his body. Activists staged numerous demonstrations across the country, and two days after Fanish's body was found the chief minister of Punjab Province ordered an inquiry into the death. At the end of the year, the inquiry remained pending.
http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2010/sca/154485.htm

Khan Suleman Daud used to pad around a palace in Baluchistan, flanked by bodyguards

2011-04-05T12:41:00.000-07:00

from The Independent & The Independent on Sunday

Royals in exile: In Britain, heirs to the thrones

Libya's wannabe king is among the many deposed monarchs living in the UK

By Matthew Bell

Sunday, 3 April 2011

Michel Lafosse lives in a flat in Edinburgh and styles himself HRH Prince Michael of Albany.

Today, home is a north London mansion with his mum. But who knows what tomorrow might bring for Prince Mohammed El Senussi, pretender to the throne of Libya?

As world leaders ponder what Libya might look like after Gaddafi, the 48-year-old may be hoping it will feature him. The prince has hired the PR firm Bell Pottinger to represent him, and this week sets off on a tour of the Middle East to meet Libyan groups. Bell Pottinger says this is to arrange humanitarian aid for his country. But who could blame him if he were to hanker after a return to Tripoli to pick up where his great-uncle King Idris left off in 1969? He's certainly not the only deposed monarch living here. As we reveal, the UK is home to a bevy of princes and heirs. Some, such as the Crown Prince of Burma, now a teacher in north London, have found happiness in normal jobs. Others have renounced their claims. But a few are, right now, still hovering by the phone, waiting for the call. And who knows, it might yet come.

Prince Mohammed el Senussi, heir to the throne of Libya

Fled Tripoli for London in 1988, where he lives with his mother and siblings. Claims the throne through his great-uncle King Idris.

The Khan of Kalat, Pakistan

Khan Suleman Daud used to pad around a palace in Baluchistan, flanked by bodyguards. Now, home is a three-bed semi in Cardiff. He's the 35th Khan of Kalat, but left in 2006 because of violence. Has been granted asylum, but hopes to go back soon.

The other king of England

If Charles I hadn't been executed, Franz Herzog von Bayern, Duke of Bavaria, would be king. Technically, the 77-year-old could still succeed.

Leka, exiled claimant to the throne of Albania

The only son of King Zog of Albania, Leka should have inherited the crown. Alas, Italy invaded when he was two days old, in 1939. Exile began at the Ritz, then a mansion near Ascot.

Crown prince of Burma

Prince Shwebomin left Burma for London aged 13 because of the junta. He is a teacher in north London. He said: "My aim is to bring democracy to Burma with me as king."

The Sultan of Zanzibar

Once he ruled a paradise archipelago off Tanzania. Today, Jamshid bin Abdullah is an 82-year-old pensioner in Portsmouth. He moved there after the revolution of 1964, where he remains with his wife and six children.

Heir to Serbia's throne

British sovereignty over room 212 at Claridge's was once briefly ceded to Yugoslavia after Crown Prince Alexander Karadjordjevic was born there, allowing him to claim he was born in Yugoslav territory. The Queen is his godmother.

King Constantine II of Greece

Ruled for nine years until the creation of a republic in 1973, though he never formally abdicated. Lives in Hampstead and is godfather to Prince William, a cousin.

The next king of Scotland

Born in Belgium, Michel Lafosse now lives in a flat in Edinburgh, and styles himself HRH Prince Michael of Albany. Claims to be the legitimate Jacobite heir to the Scottish throne.

Balochistan’s Burden of Slavery

2011-03-28T04:54:00.000-07:00

Baloch Human Rights Council (Canada) Statement

There cannot be a darker period in the life of a nation than the day it loses its freedom and the free will to govern itself. There is only one thing worse than slavery – the total absence of will to be free. March 27, 1948 is a day in the life of every Baloch that changed the collective consciousness of a people to a new dimension with global ramifications. The national liberation movement in Balochistan today is a struggle not only to free the nation from the yolk of colonialism but also to liberate the whole region from the forces of darkness, religious extremism, nuclear catastrophe, and terrorism.

The British occupation of Balochistan in 1839 set in motion the course of history that led to its conclusive end of enforced annexation of a sovereign nation into Pakistan. The British imperial control of Balochistan in the 19th century established the foundation of modern day military cantonment in Quetta, railway line for transporting foreign troops to the Afghan border, and setting up of telegraph lines for command and control of military incursions in Balochistan and the region. Col. Sir Robert Sandeman (1835–1892) enhanced the socio-political aspect of foreign rule over Balochistan by introducing the Sardari system also known as the Sandeman system. Sardari system transformed the social dynamics of the traditional Baloch tribal society and weakened the resistance to colonial rule in Balochistan.

Construction of military cantonments and the Sardari system were the two pillars that enabled the British to rule over Balochistan for more than a century. The Sardari system provided the social base to fragment Baloch national unity and the military setup became the tool to repress the patriotic resistance. The Pakistani civil-military establishment inherited, promoted, and augmented the twin pillars of military and socio-political structures (Sardari system) of British colonial methods of control in Balochistan. Furthermore, the factor of economic exploitation of natural resources in Balochistan was added to enhance their power over the occupied colony.

The political landscape of the present day Balochistan is a creation and continuation of the British colonial policies and powers transferred to the new masters in Islamabad. The additional dimensions of control now include Islamic state ideology, religious extremism in the form of Talibanization, and cultural genocide to eliminate all traces of national identity of the Baloch nation. The most violent forms of state terrorism are being inducted to repress the anti-colonial liberation movement in Balochistan today.

Similar to all wars of national liberation in the colonial and post-colonial era, Baloch nation’s struggle for independence is going through a period of political transformation with a constantly changing need to adjust to new realities in terms of national unity, politics, and armed struggle. Since the first uprising in 1948 to the present ongoing war of independence, the movement has evolved in terms of national consciousness, the role of leadership, political front, and tactics in militancy. Changes on the international scene such as the end of Soviet era, and the post-911 global order have had its impact in the development of patterns of resistance to the state.

Nevertheless, Baloch nation today is still confronted with the old enemies from the British colonial days – an alien occupation army and the social constrains of the decadent Sandeman Sardari system, sowing discord and political disunity in the movement. In addition, a section of the emerging nascent middle class; an outgrowth of student activism, has been lured away by the establishment, and accommodated in civil services and corrupt political structures of Pakistan.

Despite difficulties of various natures, the Baloch patriotic elite and political cadres from cross-sections of society have succeeded in launching the fifth wave of independence movement against the state of Pakistan. The popular support for the movement amongst the youth is enormous because of the deep felt sense of injustice, state repression of national identity, and loss of empowerment over land and natural resources. The role of leadership has broadened and has become more inclusive of the middle strata, and so has the level of participation, stretching to areas such as Makran and the coastal Balochistan.

Of course, with the success of a peoples’ movement come the brutal atrocities committed against civilians. Between the years 2003 and 2011 more than 10,000 civilians including tribesmen, students, journalists, lawyers, political and human rights activists, and doctors have fallen victim to enforced disappearances, torture, extra judicial and in-custody executions, and targeted killings in the street. The gross human rights violations by the Pakistani security forces have deepened the sense of injustice and despair among the masses. The new state policy of ‘kill and dump’ of recently disappeared activists has resulted in the recovery of 130 mutilated bodies in the last six months alone. This new wave of state terrorism is aimed at creating fear in the Baloch populace and induces a condition of lawlessness/chaos, facilitating military operations and deeming it unsafe for media personnel.

The presence of 150,000 to 200,000 military and paramilitary troops in Balochistan and the construction of new cantonments have raised the fear of mass executions and full-blown genocide of the Baloch nation. This volatile situation calls for a Baloch national unity on a broad scale and on various levels to empower the nation with the means to resist state repression and gain support from the international community. We have observed in the recent weeks how mass political uprisings in the Arab world have changed the political face of the Middle East in a short period, forcing the western democracies to engage actively. Balochistan needs a powerful political voice in order to be heard in the world, especially by the West. And such a voice can only be resonated through political unity on a grand scale with the complete blessings and support of a nation behind it.

Inside Balochistan, the apparent lack of national unity is hurting the movement and making it easier for the state apparatus to prey on the unarmed political cadre who are crucial in maintaining the link between the freedom fighters in the mountains and the Baloch populace. The state has devised a policy to disconnect the armed struggle from the political work in the masses. Once the political front of the liberation struggle is disunited and weakened, it will become easier for the state to eliminate it or turn it into a confused group of individuals without a clear objective. The state machinery is already engaged in a powerful propaganda campaign of disinformation and lies with the objective to create disunity, confusion, and distrust amongst the cadres. It becomes even more dangerous for the organization when the dissemination is designed from within the ranks to produce the desired affects of trust deficit.

On this day, that marks the beginning of decades of subjugation of the Baloch nation by Pakistan, one can only hope for a political tsunami of mass uprising, as one nation, to break free from the yolk of slavery. This day invites us to contemplate on the suffering of our nation’s mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, sons, and daughters who have lost their loved ones to the cause of freedom. The arms of the parents are now tired of picking up young mutilated bodies of the nation’s heroic sons. The families of the disappeared youths can only imagine what may have happened to their dear ones as they witness the mutilated broken bodies found in the fields.

The leader of the Algerian freedom struggle was once asked, “How does it feel to be a free nation,” he responded by opening the window of his room and pointed at a cemetery with seemingly endless rows of graves, and said, “That is freedom.”

Today the Baloch youths, political activists, and the freedom fighters understand the price of liberty and are willing to pay it with their blood. The suffering masses of Balochistan are embracing for the worst atrocities at the hands of the Pakistani army and all their hopes are pinned on the leaders who have claim over Baloch nationalism and independence. Baloch human rights groups in Balochistan, as well as in Europe and North America are struggling in the courts and international forums to put forward the cases of Baloch missing persons and submit reports on torture, extra judicial killings, and in-custody executions of activists. The limited role of human rights bodies is not going to bring any immediate change on the ground in Balochistan. In the immediate future, the western democracies and governments are the only powers that can force Pakistan and its military to stop the atrocities against the Baloch civilian population. The West, particularly U.S. has the economic and the political advantage to assert pressure on Pakistan. The world powers will listen to the Baloch political leaders if they develop some level of understanding to address the immediate humanitarian crisis in Balochistan in a unified way. This can be achieved through a dialogue between the Baloch leadership for the sole purpose of saving Baloch lives without compromising their long-term political goals. If we expect the world to pay attention to the sufferings of our nation, then it becomes our national duty to take the first step. If our leaders do not act now on a humanitarian level then the future mass genocide of our nation is inevitable and it will be too late to stop the process.

Baloch Human Rights Council (BHRC) believes in national unity and strives for political understanding among the various Baloch political organizations without antagonizing anyone. We respect the democratic principle of ‘agreeing to disagree’ when it comes to resolving political problems within the Baloch national movement. There can always be understanding on short-term goals of urgent political or humanitarian nature. If civilized nations of the world have the sense to sit on the table for a dialogue regarding their national interests then why cannot we at the time of a national crisis. BHRC is not affiliated to any political party or group for the sake of human rights work and its commitment to national unity. As a responsible Baloch human rights body, we are willing to offer our efforts to facilitate a dialogue between the various Baloch political organizations to negotiate an agenda on the single point of confronting the gross human rights violations in Balochistan including enforced disappearances, extra-judicial killings, in-custody executions, and the state policy of ‘killing and dumping’ of Baloch political activists.

Let this day be a reminder that if we fail to unite as a nation, we are doomed to remain disunited as slaves.

Zaffar Baloch
President,
Baloch Human Rights Council (Canada)
March 27, 2011

Iran is the seat of Shiite Caliph

2011-03-20T04:39:00.000-07:00

“Recognition of otherness is a right and a duty for everyone…it is reasonable to ask foreigner to recognise and respect the strangeness of those who welcome them”. Kristeva, nation without nationalism,

The Shiite uprising in Bahrain is not democrat movement, because democratic movements cannot be sectarian. The Shiite uprising in the Gulf states is wider sectarian war between Shiite and Sunny raised on the behest of Imam Khamenei.

Human should have the right to worship any god they please. The Shiite discriminate other sect of Islam where they are in power. The Bahrain population are an Arab and divided by two branches of Islam the Shiite loyal to Shiite Imam resided in Iran, and the Sunny independent mindset of Islam.

Democracy does not discriminate. Shiite are in majority they know that they have popular vote and the Sunny have historical claim on Bahrain. The Shiite wishes to win the state by vote, once they are in the power kick the Sunny first out of the power and out of Bahrain later. Iran is the seat of Shiite Caliph, Kuwait, Bahrain, Iraq, and Lebanon would be part of Shiite Caliph. The Shiite religion allows the believer to lies in order to mislead enemies.

The Shiites are loyal to the central authority of the Shiite Imam who claims that he rules on behalf of the hiding Imam. Bahrain governed by Iranian loyalist would be the real threat to the Gulf states given the fact that the Iranian have never given up the claim that Bahrain is a part of Iran territory.

The people of Bahrain have the right to vote and stand for to be voted in the highest office through a democratic process , but their indisputable right should not eclipsed by the Iranian and religion. The religious dispute should not stand on the way of the democratic progress and masses should avoid the sectarian pitfall.
M.Sarjov
.

No force can defeat will of the people, will of the people prevail.

2011-03-17T11:36:00.000-07:00

As the history of Baluchistan first appears more than 2300 years ago when Alexandra the great pass through Persia (Khorassan) on his way to invade India, the Alexandra’s army encountered the Gedroshian forces in Khorassan hill. Alexandra chose Mukran route on his return to Persia and Babylon. The result of Alexandra expedition through Baluchistan has offered some written documents that indicate Baluch distinctness from their neighbours.

Another epoch when Omer the first caliph invaded Persia, Omer dispatched a spy to Baluchistan, in return the spy reported to caliph that Mukran is a vast land with little water, a small army will be defeated the large army will die from hanger and want for water as that happen to the Alexandra army. The Arab army did not invade Baluchistan. The Baluch language and culture survived the biggest threat that demised and reshaped our neighbour forever.

In the seventh century Mohmmed bin Qusm invaded few ports of Baluchistan to some extend it did not affect Baluch nation as whole, owing to economic and political circumstances that related to relic. The Baluch language and culture and way of life have survived.

Baluchistan has been conquered and occupied, but conquerors were able to leave little or no mark on the Baluch culture or language. There are many reasons that invaders have not been able to assimilated Baluch nation. A) the Baluch unique sentiment B) cities were too small only confined to small forth and artisan and few merchants, majority of the Baluch population were resided in small villages.

C) Tribal; where loyalty defined by blood relation and outsider are rejected.

Up till now there is popular myth that there were completely impossible for any invader to subdue the entire Baluch nation, no one ever had been able to achieve that.

Mountains have protected Baluch for centuries from outside invaders. But the modern armies are equipped with modern technologies that the mountains are no loner outside the enemies reach.

The question is that how should Baluch face the enemies that armed with bombs which can destroy the mountains? The enemies endow with gas that can poison environment and water?

The technologies make it possible for the enemy with the adequate resources to mobiles it forces within hours in any part of Baluchistan. When a state act irrationally it is hard to predict the state action. Pakistan is irrational state, its politician behave like the criminal they recognises no internal law.

The state of Pakistan arose from the colonial unit, which was imposed upon five self-sustain nations. In order to create an ideological Islamic state, the Indian subcontinent Muslim elites, had formed Islam into political ideology mobilised Muslim in around the hate against Hindu majority; Muslim elite in India had succeeded to create state, but the have failed to transform the religion into nationalist ideology. They are finding it a very difficult to create a homogenous culture out of current inhabitants. Pakistan became a sovereign territory, but it is far from unified nation.

Pakistan has invaded Baluchistan and isolated its leaders in some cases has killed those Baluch who want to promote integrity of Baluch nation. Pakistan promote indecency And reward dishonesty.

The new invaders of Baluchistan have learnt from where other had failed in Baluchistan in order to subdue nation enemies no longer believe in the assimilation, secondly the assimilation process take a long time and need a lot of expert knowledge, in order to assimilate another nation one have to have a superior well define culture than the Baluch culture, the Pakistani (Punjabi) formed their state by cultivating hatred against Hindu therefore that has placed the Pakistani away from their Indian roots and heritage this ambiguity has created more uncertainty. One can create an artificial state over night but cannot create a new culture.

Now for Pakistani to succeed Pakistan is relaying on brutal force, to isolate some middle classes and kill the nationalist activists and leaders and corrupt amoral Baluch. And swamp Baluchistan with Mohijir settlers, Punjabi, Taliban the most ideological Pakistani.

It is remain to be seen if Pakistani succeeds. Baluch are resisting strongly, although there is weakness in struggle. Baluch may need to recognise that environment that their survivors depend on it has changed. Baluch need to evolve new ideas to counter new phenomenon. Baluch should not relay on the mountains for protection because the enemies developed technique that mountains no longer offer protection. the enemies are equipped with media, and well educated intellectual, the enemies are holding the united nation seats.

The enemies of the Baluch nation would like to draw feature of Baluch as uncivilised people. It is easy for the enemies to dehumanise Baluch and kill them in isolation away from foreign media. Pakistani settlers are using state machineries in order to demonise Baluch nation. Baluch intellectual should debate ideas and should not shy from discussing what future Baluch has. More than 8000 young educated Baluch are currently held by security forces with no charge registered against them their where about unknown. Political party are denied platform, the state army acting like common criminal and killing who ever please them. No force can defeat will of the people, will of the people prevail.

M.Sarjov

The Chinese Cozy Up to the Pakistanis

2011-03-16T05:10:00.000-07:00

Selig S. Harrison

March 16, 2011

China’s expanding reach is a natural and acceptable accompaniment of its growing power—but only up to a point.
Beijing is understandably challenging a century of U.S. dominance in the Pacific and the South China Sea immediately adjacent to its shores. But the aggressive effort to block Indian hegemony in South Asia, reflected in its growing ties with Pakistan and its territorial claim to the adjacent northeast state of Arunachal Pradesh (for which there is no historical basis) is more ominous.
In contrast to its studied neutrality on the Kashmir issue in past decades, Beijing is now openly supportive of Pakistan and is establishing its economic and political influence both in Pakistan-occupied Azad (Free) Kashmir and in the Himalayan state of Gilgit-Baltistan.
In Azad Kashmir, Chinese investors are taking over local business firms, and in Gilgit-Baltistan, non-combat People’s Liberation Army brigades, working closely with Pakistani engineering and development ventures, are becoming a dominant presence in local affairs. Given the undeveloped state of local social institutions, the impact of the Chinese presence is magnified.
As the supplier of nuclear reactors for the Chasma complex and of fighter aircraft for the Pakistan Air Force, Beijing increasingly rivals the U.S. as a security partner of Pakistan. This partnership is likely to grow in the wake of the CIA rupture with the Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate (ISI) resulting from the shooting of two Pakistanis by CIA operative Raymond Davis, now languishing in a Lahore prison.
The possibility of a direct armed conflict between India and China appears unlikely, and their economic interchange is growing. But China’s alignment with Pakistan on India-Pakistan issues will make a reduction in tensions between New Delhi and Islamabad more difficult than ever—at a time when the two countries have agreed to resume a dialogue between their two foreign ministers in July.
The two most obvious ways in which New Delhi and Islamabad could ease tensions would be through conventional-force reductions and increased trade. But China’s influence will clearly be on the side of a bigger and better Air Force for Pakistan; and the reversal of its position on Kashmir will further stiffen Pakistan’s resistance to an accommodation.
China does not directly support Islamist forces in Pakistan and fears the spread of Islamist influence to Sinkiang province. By fueling India-Pakistan tensions, however, Beijing plays into the hands of the growing Islamist menace in Pakistan.
To counter what China is doing in Pakistan, the United States should play hardball by supporting the movement for an independent Baluchistan along the Arabian Sea and working with Baluch insurgents to oust the Chinese from their budding naval base at Gwadar. Beijing wants its inroads into Gilgit and Baltistan to be the first step on its way to an Arabian Sea outlet at Gwadar.
The Baluch and their allies in neighboring Sind are embroiled in a bitter struggle with the Pakistan Army and its Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate (ISI), which seeks to snuff out Baluch insurgent activity by killing off or jailing known or suspected Baluch independence activities. Amnesty International reported 40 known cases of such “disappearances” in 2010, and at an earlier stage of the crisis, in 2006, 458 cases were pending before the Pakistan Supreme Court in the last days of the Pervez Musharraf regime.
China’s open support for Pakistan on India-Pakistan issues poses a growing threat to the peace in South Asia that adds to the complex dilemmas already facing the U.S. in dealing with its Islamabad “ally”.
http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/chinese-cozy-up-pakistanis-5027