My dear friend, you need to understand that the RIGHT of INTERFERENCE is not given, it is not something which you can give or take, the opposed party reserves full right and enjoys freedom to INTERFERE in anything and everything they want, we have to counter the interference with logic and understanding, not with emotional provocations because the americans are not FOOLS and they know very well (much better than you and me) that there interference (in this particular aspect) is ONLY THEORETICAL and they know very well that this bill even if passed (Although they knew very well it will never be passed) CAN NEVER impose freedom for baluchistan.. Their mission was to spread chaos and spark a discussion and spread some uncertainty in the environment, that's what one calls MIND GAMES and MIND WAR.. or better said, war of nerves.. And they have very well succeeded in it, so far

USA as a superpower reserves the right (moral or immoral, ethical or unethical, correct or wrong) to exercise anything they can to defend their position as a superpower. They can get very nasty and they should get very nasty (good for them, not for us)

Lastly, we never made them superpowers because of our weaknesses but they dealt with their weaknesses rather than being emotional about it and they went for some practical actions rather than empty talks and they were lucky to have people who were honest in the cause and were not interested in corruption or money laundering.

In the end, we are responsible for everything! Bitter truth

I was only telling you that everything depends on how you look at things. Different point of views are there and we (as humans) only support those view points that are favorable for us.

We have many problems, as you pointed out.. the political goons are a bigger problem for the national security than the baluchistan issue.. yeah I am talking of the MQM and the Parday mai rehnay do ALTAF BHAI


Let's talk about practical actions & Logic instead.

do you think, US, a super power, really bothers about some natural resources possessed by Balochistan? They like to give you a feeling that they care.. MIND GAME

The biggest problem with Baluchistan is sense of insecurity in the minds of Baluchi people. Baluchistan is not an agricultural land, due to that economy of Baluchistan has never remained agricultural where different people are brought together by land lords to work on their lands; Baluch people are herdsman who's society is formed on tribal and clan lines living together for protection of their property and lives. Such people are fiercely warrior like to protect themselves and their property. You can easily notice steppes after steppes of empty barren land surrounded by mountains in Baluchistan and remote isolated human settlements in hamlets or small towns not connected and miles apart from each other, what would minds of people be living in such conditions, of course they will sense danger coming from all sides. The Government of Pakistan was quick to annex Baluchistan as a province but never really attempted to build infrastructure, cities, industries etc that could have brought people closer and taken away their sense of imminent danger with which they have lived for centuries; however the Government did attempt to take away mineral wealth from Baluchi lands, use Baluchi coastline and now Baluchis are feeling threatened by the Government of Pakistan and feel that their wealth is being taken away and their lands are being used to serve others' purposes without their consent. Their response towards this threat is very natural. The Government should immediately halt all other economic activities in Baluchistan, reconcile with Baluchis first, build cities and industries for Baluchis to live and work in, build roads and rail network to connect those cities, give security to people and maintain law and order. Baluchis can really become more advanced society than any other in Pakistan and they should be made to feel like that. The Government should remember that minerals and ports are not going any where, its Baluchi people that are going somewhere else to secure their wealth. If you make Baluchis happy and befriend them, they will be very hospitable and let you have what you want, but if you come only to take away whats theirs, they will resist.

As far as US bill is concerned, these are just modern techniques to weaken your foe .

__________________
The precondition for existence of a higher humanity is not the state, but the nation possessing the necessary ability.

Pakistan's Constitution provides the same Rights to Baluchis, as it does to Punjabis, Pakhtoons and Sindhis. Baluchistan has a full fledged Provincial Government, on which lies the primary responsibility of Local Development. I can't understand what Equal or Unequal Right the, Baluch Nationalist Leaders or other Idiot Politicians talk about. This is an established fact that The State of Pakistan, provides equal constitutional rights to people from Baluchistan, as it does to citizen from other provinces. As far as the economic matters are concerned why don't they consult with the Provincial Government, instead of Blaming, not even the federal Government, But the State of Pakistan as a whole. Those who talk about a sovereign Baluchistan, on grounds that Pakistan is taking away their natural resources and not providing them adequate share, should actually ask for the more funds for the Provincial Government of Baluchistan, and then use these funds for the Betterment of their local people, instead what they do is they simply deny to be part of Federation of Pakistan. Actually the Baluch Nationalist leaders are not even sincere to people of Baluchistan, they have ties and are sponsored by enemies of Pakistan, and all they wan't is their personal dominance and command over a common tribesman, that is why they don't look for economic development of local areas under Provincial Set-up.

Dear according to your analysis there is no real problem since everything is mentioned in the book and there are just gangs of lousy trouble makers who want power for themselves therefore they are inciting people for sedition. I also feel it is like that and security agencies will be able to quell those trouble makers and bring them to justice, but their success in raising more and more Baluchi people to rebel against the Government suggest something else; it suggests that there might be some genuine grievance of Baluchis which has not been properly addressed by the Government. It might be true to say that all Baluchis do not support rebellion against Pakistan, it is also true to say all Baluchis do not cooperate with the Government as well. There is a lot of difference in what is mentioned in the Constitution and how it is practiced in real life. People have been following the sardars for centuries and the Government established its rule in Baluchistan by handing over the people to sardars and using same old colonial tactics of stick and carrot and divide et impera to dominate the sardars (the provincial government just serves the purpose of a carrot ). It was a good tactic of course since it peacefully brought Baluchistan under the sovereignty of Pakistan, but continuous use of the same tactic is finally taking its toll. The Government should have taken steps to get people out of sardars' following and follow one big sardar, i.e. the Government itself, since that is the basis of a nation-state that people trust it more than others. Had the government since day 1 of annexing Baluchistan been building infrastructure, roads, industrial zones, educational institutions etc across the area, I can bet the situation would have been much different today and those trouble makers (as you think them) wouldn't have been able to cause so much anxiety to all the nation. But instead the Government just focused on maintaining its dominance through manipulating sardars, taking minerals and building a port and let people be as they are, now the situation has gradually come to the tipping point of today.

__________________
The precondition for existence of a higher humanity is not the state, but the nation possessing the necessary ability.

Very Right, its the Government, Federal as well as Provincial which should have taken steps towards facilitating People of Baluchistan, as it should in all other provinces, But eventually the Governments in Pakistan have other priorities than facilitating general public, and, I agree that Baluchistan required more attention than what was provided, however, the whole country is suffering the same dilemma, which Baluchistan happens to have a little more than others, and the solution is a collective effort social and political, which Baluch Nationalist Leadership is severely lacking, instead they have priorities of their own and they are only manipulating the local conditions in pursuit of their evil designs not only against the State of Pakistan but Baluch population itself.

That's good that now you are talking about something logical,yes, my point is same from the beginning that we have to counter these kind of external propaganda, but it doesn't mean that we don't blame any such move against us, condemning the wrong steps is our primary responsibility and then we should move towards practical steps and improivement, revision of foreign policy after NATO attacks was a great move indeed from our side.....so we have to think emotionally as well, for patriotism and national intersest emotions cant be ignored,,,,but for sure, with the help of logic, vision and insight, so we have to make out fate instead of waiting for some external help!

__________________
what humbugs we r,who pretend to live for beauty and never see the dawn :)

THIS refers to the article ‘When words won’t work’ (Feb 18) by Abbas Nasir. The writer has attempted to shed light on the burning issue of Balochistan, raising a few points that raise more questions.

He has put the onus for the Balochistan issue on the military only, without considering political factors. This makes it a biased analysis. If, according to the writer, the military is responsible for this anarchy and the government has acquiesced in and endorsed its hardline policy, then shouldn’t this government quit? If a government does not have the guts to make secret agencies answerable to it, then does it have any right to govern?

We often forget the fact that besides the military rulers it has been civilian governments that have launched military operations against the Baloch. The perfect example is that of Zulfikar Bhutto who, despite being a champion of democracy and human rights, ordered the army to launch an operation against Baloch insurgents in 1973.

It had started when the National Awami Party demanded more representation for the Baloch in the government — an idea not liked by Bhutto who dismissed the Balochistan government, imposing the governor’s rule.

And now under another civilian (PPP) government we are going through these most turbulent times with Baloch separatists openly asking for independence while US Congressmen suggested an independent Balochistan owing to the USA’s vested
interest in the resource – rich and strategically important region.

We must understand that in this chaos glorifying the tribal chieftains who are asking for independence so vociferously now would not solve the problem. These sardars are neither the true leaders of the oppressed Baloch people nor are they the ones who should be given incentives.

Had these chieftains been our true leaders, the ordinary Baloch would then have not been killed by landmines and improvised explosive devices planted by insurgents. Agencies are involved in killing the Baloch. This is deplorable. But what about ethnic cleansing of non-Baloch communities, sectarian killings, and explosions at gas installations and railway lines in Balochistan?

Following the US congressional hearing on Balochistan, Rehman Malik announced the government would withdraw the cases against Baloch sardars who have openly requested ‘help’ from the US, Nato, India and Afghanistan. Isn’t this treason?

What good can we achieve by giving amnesty to these ‘leaders’ who are living in self-exile in luxury villas, while Baloch people are being brutally murdered here?

We must understand that the return of these chieftains will not alleviate the pangs of hunger of the poor Baloch. They will remain oppressed under the sardars with a constant fear of being put into private jails on any pretext.

It is time the government talked to saner Baloch political elements and the deprived masses that are ready to talk unlike the extremists. We need changes in Balochistan on a mass scale, not half-hearted paying of lip-service. Balochistan must be
developed on a war footing in every sector, matching the other three provinces. Groups with vested interests will keep on exploiting the deprivation of the Baloch.

JAHANZAIB BALOCH
Quetta

Balochistan: who is guilty? | Newspaper | DAWN.COM

__________________
what humbugs we r,who pretend to live for beauty and never see the dawn :)

US ke congrressional resolution on Balochistan issue kiya ha??

''Baloch nation has a historic right to self-determination.'' it's the main crux of the resolution, for the detail, read first post/article of this thread.

__________________
what humbugs we r,who pretend to live for beauty and never see the dawn :)

Taimoor Ashraf

The onus is on the political leadership to stand up and be counted. In a perverse way we should be thankful to those who tabled this resolution for waking us up from our slumber. Americans like Congressman Rohrabacher must not be able to ruffle our feathers but we must heed the advice of another American who in 1858 had said: “A house divided against itself cannot stand”

A resolution demanding self- determination for the people of Balochistan, Pakistan’s largest province, tabled by Congressman Dana Rohrabacher in the halls of Capitol Hill, has stirred frenzy in Pakistan. Alarm bells have started to ring, forcing many to think whether Uncle Sam is up to his usual antics! An insecure country, which has had to endure the humiliation of dismemberment in 1971, cannot help but think whether the US has actual designs of further cutting Pakistan into pieces. The Foreign Office has dubbed the move as a violation of international laws. Ambassador Abdullah Hussain Haroon has called it “...the West’s ongoing movement against the Muslim world”. This is not so. The Americans may have violated Pakistani sensibilities. However, they are perfectly under the ambit of international law for discussing the matter. Furthermore, a closer look at the principle of self-determination is required, since the law as it stands today does not help either the Baloch separatists or their international ‘friends’.

The law as it has developed ever since the landmark Lotus Case (1927) PCIJ Ser. A No. 10, stipulates that every nation-state has the right to legislate on any matter, be it within its borders or outside. A country under prescriptive jurisdiction of law may pass legislation on any international event, territory, property, person, wherever they may be present. This, however, does not mean that the country, in pursuance of its law(s) may invade and occupy the other country on the pretext of enforcing its law(s). The same Lotus Case, which empowers a sovereign state to legislate on matters outside of its territorial boundaries, also restricts the enforcement of such law outside of its boundaries. “The first and foremost restriction imposed by international law upon a state is that — failing the existence of a permissive rule to the contrary — it may not exercise its power in any form in the territory of another state,” read a few lines from the judgment in the Lotus Case.

Therefore, while the US and its supreme legislative body is empowered under international law to discuss, debate, and even pass legislation in favour of demanding the right of self-determination for the people of Balochistan, it is nonetheless restrained from invading and occupying Balochistan to enforce any such legislation.

The passing of the UN General Assembly Resolution on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Territories and Peoples in 1960 developed the principle of self-determination as a legal right rather then a political philosophy. It is a post-Colonialism, post-World War II development, which has essentially become one of the most fundamental principles of customary international law today. The International Court of Justice in Portugal v Australia 1995 ICJ Rep 90, declared the principle of self-determination as ‘one of the essential principles of contemporary international law’. Furthermore, in another case, the Court in its advisory jurisdiction stated that ‘the right of the peoples to self-determination is today a right erga omnes’ (Palestinian Wall Advisory Opinion 2004 ICJ Rep para. 88). Therefore, even if Congressman Rohrabacher had not raised the issue, the principle stood regardless, upholding one of the most fundamental legal rights. But this is not what makes us fidgety; it’s the fact that the right of self-determination often leads to independence! Notwithstanding that, this understanding too needs close scrutiny.

In the Western Sahara Case 1975 ICJ Rep 12, the Court defined the principle by stating that self-determination “requires a free and genuine expression of the will of the peoples concerned”. The judgment naturally begs the question: which ‘peoples’ are entitled to exercise such a right? The jurisprudence on the issue is, however, still unsettled, and as a result two distinct schools of thought have emerged.

The traditionalists, since the principle developed out of the womb of Western colonialism, are of the view that only those who were/are occupied by a foreign state may exercise this right. Palestinians and their right to self-determination is one ripe example. This school of thought does not foresee a distinct ethnic group, existing within an independent state, exercising the right of self-determination. If the law develops along these lines in future, it certainly would help the cause of the Baloch separatists and their international advocates. Nevertheless, there is another school of thought.

The opposite view is that any ethnic group, living either under a colonial power or in an independent state, may exercise this legal right. The EC Arbitration Commission on Yugoslavia has bolstered their case. The Commission is of the view that people living in an independent state may exercise this right given that they achieve the factual prerequisites (e.g. permanent population, defined territory, government, capacity to enter into legal relations, etc) for statehood as listed in the Montevideo Convention on Rights and Duties of States 1933. This essentially implies secession. However, to assuage the fears of federal states, the Commission has made “factual independence” a prerequisite to exercising the right of self-determination. The Commission, furthermore, does not disallow a federal state from preventing secession lawfully (some would suggest even forcefully). Case Concerning Certain Questions Relating to Secession of Quebec from Canada 161 DLR (4th) 385 is a relevant case in point. The Supreme Court of Canada was approached on Quebec’s independence from Canada and its validity under both Canadian and international law(s). The Court was of the opinion that a political sub-unit of an independent state does not enjoy secession as a right under international law. However, the Court emphasised that the government of the independent state must respect the ethnic group’s culture, language, etc. In short, for our purposes it is comforting to conclude that the existing international law does not support the Baloch separatists’ right to independence.

What the resolution has however done is that it has put the ball back in our court. If the Baloch have genuine grievances (they certainly do), they must be addressed. The powers that be simply cannot brush their genuine demands aside by labelling them as treasonous. Callousness is one luxury we cannot afford in Balochistan, at least not anymore. The onus is on the political leadership to stand up and be counted. In a perverse way we should be thankful to those who tabled this resolution for waking us up from our slumber.

Americans like Congressman Rohrabacher must not be able to ruffle our feathers but we must heed the advice of another American who in 1858 had said: “A house divided against itself cannot stand.”

The writer is an advocate of the high court
Daily Times - Leading News Resource of Pakistan

__________________
what humbugs we r,who pretend to live for beauty and never see the dawn :)