gentleman i think you are the spokes US secretary of state that's why you are here discussing the sovereign blochistan,,,,,,,,,,,,we don't need any enemy when the traitors like you are with in us,,,,,,,,,,,as you are distorting the history,,,,,,,,,,,, bangladesh is NOT the result of freedom movement but its more a result of agartila shazish case,,,,,,,,,i accept k bangaliyon k sath ziaditiyan hui but not like that k they demanded freedom,,,,,,,,,,,same is the case with blochistan there is a lot of foreign interference by india, usa as well as by israel,,,,,,,,,,,

but i just want to tell you that sovereign blochistan is merely a dream for you as well as for your masters,,,,,,,,,,,,,,


MERA AZAM ITNA BULAND HA, PAARAYE SHULOUN KA DAR NAHI,
MUJY KHOF AATISH-E-GUL SAY HA, KAHEN MERAY CHAMAN KO JALA NA DAY

I never said if it's justified or not, I only asked "Why" the double standards. Secondly, do you have any Idea where drone attacks are done? Have you studied those areas or are aware of the situation there? The people there are all criminals.. The local elders are involved in kidnapping and they serve as the middle mans.. They give shelter to kidnappers, and most of the kidnapped victims are taken to those places as it's safe heaven for them.. Chars and heroin are sold openly just like you see fruits being sold in your local markets.. Why do those people allow them? This is what you call an "AZAAB" on them.. Ask anyone living in Peshawar and they will tell you how CIVILIZED and how PEACEFUL the areas in question are.

Secondly, as for forces crossing and killing bin laden, How is this related to the topic? You are just trying to prove the incompetence of our army and intelligence with this, nothing else

@ Mukt :
My dear please read your words . You are justifying the drone attacks .We all know where the drones attack , and who are the one,s who die there , BY THE WAY What about the civilians causalities ? the women and children ...? those are criminals ,kidnappers and terrorists???

definitely every country has its own agenda as well to discuss, but US is trying to indulge themselves in the affairs of all the countries,we have the examples of IRAN, AFGHANISTAN, IRAQ,SOUTH KOREA and many more including Pakistan.i don't know how this interference make any sense to you.

If we had committed one mistake in the past, by mishandling Bangladesh issue, then why should we repeat it?we should learn from the past....it's not the freedom movement...it's just given the name of freedom movement by certain internal and external evil factors, like USA.

What's the comparison of Kashmir and Balochistan??Kashmiris are fighting for independence, Balochs are independent, although no one can deny the fact that they are passing through bad time due to vested interests of certain groups and mishandling of the issue, but we should avoid giving such misleading interpretations.

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

Brother mukt, case of Bangladesh was totally change and Bangalis never snatched Bangladesh but India attacked on it and even then we were able to get Her back but the behaviour of Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto on 15th december, 1971 in security counil was astonishing, he deliberately behaved emotionally and didn't ask for Bangladesh because he never wanted the Bangladesh as a part of Pakistan. Of course he was afraid of the political strenght of Sheikh Mujibur Rehman! At that time our case was strong in security counil and Indian aggression was unjusifiable but we deliberately lost East Pakistan. Sory dear but you are wrong at that point that we were not able to defend it.

Dear brother, we start slogans on the issue of Kashmir because it is neither part of India nor of Pakistan as per resolutions of UN. As per resolution, Kashmiris have right to become a part of Pakistan or India or to become a separate country and a referendum is suggested for this decision but India is against it. But case of Bangladesh is totally change, it is already a part of Pakistan and in Kashmir the people living are all Kashmiris but in Balochistan 40% population are Pakhtoons who want to remain a part of Pakistan and even in Baloch community only Murri and Bugti tribes are against Pakistan rest are with the country.

__________________
Khushboo Hai Mere Khoon Mein Kafoor Ki Manind,
Bikhrunga Fizaun Mein Ek Noor Ki Manind . . .

mukt, I totally agree with you.

Instead of condemning the US and India (and Israel and the Martians), we should ask ourselves what has brought us to this situation - how and why have we ended up here? That is more pertinent.

salam every one,as i can see everything from different angle i m not pakistani or got nothing against balochistan.i just want to say that, this is their old philosophy they done that before and they are trying to repeat it again(i m hinting towards west)they played the same divide and conquer game in 19th century and trying to do the same again.its in their agenda that they want pakistan divided in different parts before 2020(dont want to give any references about it dont have any either).they have ruled our part of the land in 19th century just because of their brilliant mind and sense of feel,they are very good at sensing weaknesses in their targets and its our bad luck that we always provide them those weaknesses which they use against us.Balochistan,s situation is no different its our(i m stressing on our)weakness we should solve it in between ourselves we should nt provide some one else a chance to destroy us,we are all include in us.they not done any thing for kashmir,palestine or bosnia Herzegovina,but why they are willing to do that for balochistan,they invaded iraq for kuwait but nt doin anything for palestine.they have done the similar type of thing in recent past with our another muslim country indonesia.i have nothing against balochistan i do believe that we are all brothers from different mothers.i m nt backing any one i just want our home to be safe and secure.i have great respect for all our castes and internal identities but we should always consider that being alone or try to be superior in history does nt mean anything in current environment.these western powers which are dominating the whole world do nt come from one caste or tribe,like EU or united states of america.they have their internal issues but have you seen any one pointing those out in the media or discussing with any one else.majority of you guys might know the histories of states and their internal civil wars,they are talking about identity and history of balochistan, have they forget they history of red indians in america and Aboriginies in Australia they have tried to wipe them of from their own land and trying to protect some one else,s history or identity which got nothing to do with them.

The resolution by US House of Representatives on Balochistan is not only in extreme bad taste, but also amounts to interfering in Pakistan’s internal affairs that is contrary to the UN mandate.

Balochistan is an integral part of Pakistan. The instrument of accession was signed by the Khan of Kalat on March 27, 1948, while the other states under British rule had already joined the newly independent country in 1947.

Since then, a number of separatist groups in the province have engaged in an armed struggle against the Pakistani government; the first was led by Prince Karim Khan, the Khan of Kalat’s younger brother, in 1948, and later by Nawab Nowroz Khan in 1968. These tribal uprisings were limited in scope; a more serious insurgency was led by the Marri and Mengal tribes between 1973 and 1977. All these groups fought for the existence of a “Greater Balochistan” - a single independent state ruled under tribal jirgas (a tribal system of government) and comprising the historical Balochistan region found within Iran, Pakistan and Afghanistan.

In 2005, there was another struggle to achieve these aims; in 2006, Nawab Akbar Bugti, the leader of the movement, was killed in an armed conflict with the Pakistan Army. During the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the intelligence agency of USSR, the KGB, created inroads by arming insurgents in the strife-torn province to destabilise Pakistan and reduce the pressure on its troops by mujahideen attacks launched and supported by Pakistan. According to security reports, America’s CIA, like the KGB, has also hired locals to destabilise Pakistan and pressurise it to stop its alleged support to the Taliban targeting the foreign troops in Afghanistan.

Perhaps, moving a resolution on Balochistan by Congressman Dana Rohrabacher is part of a grand plan commenced by former US President George Bush, who in a Freudian slip had called it the “crusades”, in which the Islamic world is being targeted. After the cold war, Islam has replaced communism as a major threat to the West. Bosnia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Tunis, Egypt, Yemen, Bahrain, Syria, Libya are examples of creating instability and destabilising the Islamic world, lest they unite and become a force to reckon with.

Balochis have been a fierce and warlike race. The British first came across them during the first Afghan War in 1839, when their army marched through the inhospitable barren tracts of Balochistan and was confronted by the ferocious Balochi tribes, whose incessant marauding attacks caused heavy losses and sufferings to the marching columns and baggage trains. After the Indian War of Independence in 1857, in which the British nearly lost everything, they realised that the solution to their problems in India lay in recruiting natives with warlike qualities to serve in the British army. Recognising the brave and fearless qualities of the Balochis, the British formed the Baloch regiment that fought for them resolutely in the Abyssinian Campaign of 1868, the second Afghan War in 1878 and both the world wars. Likewise, the US - aided by its partner India - is now using natives, i.e. the Balochis, to foment insurgency in their own province.

Indeed, most of the grievances the Balochis have are not unfounded. Successive Pakistani governments, even those led by the Balochi leaders, have done little or nothing to alleviate the misery of people and uplift of Balochistan. The feudal and tribal system prevalent in the troubled province has not helped matters, since the warlords have kept their folowers immersed in ignorance to keep them subservient.

Anyway, the US congressional hearing on Balochistan is a deliberate attempt to destabilise and weaken Pakistan. The move follows the last two or three years of souring relations between Pakistan and the US. Blackballing Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal, installing CIA agents in the country, the Raymond Davis affair, the Osama bin Laden episode, the unwarranted attack on Pakistani military checkposts in Salalah, and now the resolution on Balochistan are all part of the greater plot. What the US has forgotten is that the USSR had also indulged in similar machination, but paid heavily by disintegrating into the Central Asian States. By following in its footsteps and indulging in numerous wars, America has overstretched its resources; its economy is on the verge of collapse and there is a strong possibility that its 50 states may disintegrate into independent ones. It should concentrate on stemming its own rot, rather than sullying Pakistan’s affairs.

The writer is a political and defence analyst.
US sullying Pak affairs | The Nation

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

An interesting article.

“No peace in Balochistan without referendum”

As the sole witness of Baloch ethnicity to speak at the recent Balochistan hearing before the United States Congress, M. Hossein Bor disagrees with comments that he was not relevant to the proceedings.

Not only was he the only witness able to speak as a Baloch, he points out that he also was the only one with deep subject matter expertise in foreign trade and investment in Southwest Asia. From this perspective, he hoped his testimony would have shed light on the unrealised strategic and economic opportunities that an independent Balochistan would provide to Americans, including the ability to contain a rising China and an emerging Iran, prevent an adversarial Pakistan from achieving strategic depth in Afghanistan, and ensure Baloch-American economic prosperity through new energy and mineral resource agreements. However, with little time to prepare for the hearing and only five minutes of allotted time to provide oral testimony, many of these points were not expressed. Bor therefore looks to this post-hearing assessment as a mechanism to share publicly for the first time what he has shared privately with Baloch nationalists and their supporters. As one of the five witnesses called before Congress, it is assured that these remarks will be closely watched by all side to the Baloch debate.

Great Game 2.0
To understand Balochistan, Bor believes that one cannot look at Pakistan’s largest province through the Afghanistan-Pakistan (Af-Pak) box. In retrospect, this is perhaps one of the strongest contributions that he could have made at the hearing.

For Bor, Balochistan must be understood in the larger context of South-western Asia: “As everyone knows, there was a great game in this same area in the 19th century and the Afghans and Baloch were the victims. This great game has now been renewed but, instead of the British and Russian Empires, the competition is now between China-India, China-US, Iran-US, Pakistan-India, and Pakistan-US. This competition threatens US strategic and economic interests.”

He therefore counters the opinion of other witnesses, who felt that the hearing should have been limited to the Balochistan province: “There are many interrelated issues at play. When one discusses Balochistan, you are discussing a way to contain China. You are also discussing economic relationships between Iran and Pakistan. And, you are talking about energy security for the US and its allies.”

With respect to China, Bor says that the strategic and economic importance of Balochistan cannot be underestimated: “If (the Chinese) build their port in Gwadar, they will have a land route from Western China to the Indian Ocean. This is of strategic interest to the United States because Chinese ships would have a direct route to China and no longer have to transit past the Indian and American navies. It therefore is logical that Balochistan should be concerned as part of the larger shift to the Pacific announced by the Obama administration. Furthermore, Central Asia has the largest oil reserves in the world after the Middle East. Balochistan provides an alternative way to get those resources to the international market beside China and Russia.”

He makes a similar argument for Iran: “Iran is an empire and they are using Baloch lands to try to become the dominant regional player. The Iranians are using the Strait of Hormuz as a chokepoint for a huge percentage of the world’s oil. They also are building a pipeline to Pakistan which violates UN sanctions. Such growing Iran-Pakistan cooperation is a major concern.” In his mind, an independent Balochistan extending from Karachi to the Strait of Hormuz would not only contain an emerging Iran but also provide a long-term security guarantee against China, Iran, and Pakistan emerging as revisionist maritime powers in the region.

Safeguarding Afghanistan
While Bor does not believe that Balochistan should be limited to the Af-Pak box, he nevertheless recognises its extreme relevance to any discussion on the future of Balochistan.

From his perspective, Balochistan must be viewed not as an internal issue for Pakistan but rather as part of a larger regional struggle between the Baloch and Afghan nationalists and secularists against Afghan and Pakistani fundamentalists: “Pakistan and the Taliban are based upon fundamentalist Islam. They are the natural enemies of secularists and nationalists. This provides the natural ingredients that bring Afghans and Baloch together. The Baloch issue therefore is bigger than the internal struggle between Pakistan and its three large ethnic groups.”

Bor hopes that hearing will spur a follow-on national debate that will increase American awareness of the larger regional dynamics at play with Balochistan: “Not everyone understands that the Baloch have been naturally allied with the Afghan minorities and Pashtuns. The governments in power in Afghanistan have historically supported the Baloch and neither recognises the Durand Line. That is why there will always be strong cooperation between Baloch and Pashtun nationalists. They also recognise that they need Balochistan to have access to the Indian Ocean and the Gulf.”

In familiarising themselves with the regional dynamics, Bor hopes that Americans will appreciate that the reincorporation of the Taliban into Afghan politics will not necessarily undermine Baloch nationalists: “There are all kinds of possibilities if the Taliban return to power. There is no guarantee that they will trust Pakistan anymore. Plus, they themselves never recognised the Durand Line. So, one cannot conclude at this time that this harms the independent Balochistan cause.”

He consequently sees multiple policy options on the table for policymakers which allow them to pursue difference Afghan policy options while still advancing Baloch rights to self-determination.

Unearthing economic wealth
According to Bor, one of the most overlooked reasons why Balochistan has emerged as a major issue has been “the tremendous deposits of oil, gas, and minerals. In addition to human rights and geopolitics, this is a major reason why it has appeared on the international radar.”

Bor believes that Balochistan will be of increasing importance to the international community in the years ahead: “The Chinese are late-comers to the energy security game. At this point, Western oil companies control mostly of the supplies. Central Asia is one region where this is not the case. This is driving economic competition.”

However, Bor fears that Americans, including those in Congress, do not recognise the economic potential of the region. He therefore sees the hearing as the mechanism by which to introduce economic opportunities in Balochistan into the wider national debate about the future of US AfPak policy.

New cards on the table
Bor believes that the hearing was historic for a number of reasons. Of course, it was the first hearing in the Congress to directly tackle Baloch affairs. But, more importantly in Bor’s opinion, the hearing introduced new policy options to Congressmen that “should have been considered years ago.”

Bor underscores the importance of having such policy options on the table: “One of the main areas of weakness for US policy in the Middle East and Southwest Asia has always been that it did not play to regional dynamics. This was true in Iraq as well as Afghanistan. In Afghanistan, there has always been support for the Baloch but the US was never willing to play this card. The US would not play the game in Iraq or Afghanistan and take advantage of regional dynamics. But, given Iranian and Pakistani brutalisation and colonialism against the Baloch, this card has finally been raised before Congress.”

He also feels that the hearing has reinvigorated the Baloch diaspora to work within the US political system to pressure their government to play this new card, “The Baloch diaspora was late in the Washington game on AfPak policy. They now recognise the importance of playing the game and understand how to do so as a result of the hearing.”

For these reasons, Bor is optimistic that the hearing was not just a one-off event to “tick off Pakistan.” Instead, he believes it marks an important milestone along the road to independence for Balochistan: “There are different positions in the US Government but US policies are changing. They now understand the strategic imperative of an independent Balochistan from the Strait of Hormuz to Karachi.

The hearing and bill mark the first time in history that any member of the US Government has officially recognised an independent Balochistan. Even if the State Department and Administration do not support the hearing, they must now recognise that the kill and dump campaign by Pakistan’s military and intelligence is designed to destroy the very idea of secular and nationalist Baloch. The hearing showed that there will be no peace in the region without a referendum of self-determination. That cannot be ignored.”

http://www.dawn.com/2012/02/21/no-pe...eferendum.html

__________________
When you try, you risk failure. When you don’t try, you ensure it.

This congressman Dana Rohrabacher is the father of Balkanization of Yugoslavia. He strongly supported Arming Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) and held hearings in Congress over the Issue during 1995 to 1999 leading to NATO bombing of Yugoslavia and Kosovo partition. besides his antipathy to Pakistan is no secret. Now You can draw similarities b/w KLA and Balochistan Liberation Army (BLA). Paradoxically Kosovo Muslims who were presented as the oppressed ethnic group were supported globally through EU, USA media campaigns, UNSC passed resolutions, Pakistanis as ever became emotional for the Ummah, PTV the channel of Ummah started media campaigns Alfa Brao Charli, documentaries of Serb violence Jihadis from every nook and corner of the world joined KLA, Serbs were declared crusaders
NATO became the Salahudin Ayoubi.

China abstained from UNSC resolutions citing the concern that external interference is unjustified and matters should be the internal concern of Yugoslavia.



And when Kosovo declared independence 2008 all the west welcomed it but the leader of the Ummah refused recognition to Kosovo.

As you sow so shall you reap!! Pakistanis accuse west of Double standards now what about Pakistan: Recent UNSC vote supporting Syria intervention.

Now I think Pak need not to complain about internal interference in its affairs.
It is justified!

those who forget history will be condemned to repeat it.

__________________
Prejudice is an opinion without judgment. Voltaire my hero

aoa!
the simmering crises in balochistan are wake-up call for paksitani officials.we have to avoid the scenario of 1971 in which beginning was the TRUST-GAP between federation and east pakistan..then they resort to arm and finally sought foreign support.balochistan case is differerent from east pakistan in a sense that there in east pakitan the whole pot was dirty whereas in balochistan these are the tribal areas namely buggti,marri et al which need careful attention.moreover baloch separatists have to prove yet that they enjoy majority support for their heinous cause.
i think the move by DANA rohrabacher can be proved a blessing in disguise for the instituions alerting them and let them descry the horrible future if balochistan is not paid ''due-attention''
US has many interests in balochistan because of its strategic position vis a vis afgahnistan,central asia,arabian sea,china and iran.economic purpose of US in the region cant be obtained sans its control over balochistan.we should not forget that US can intervene in the balochistan on the pretext of human rights issue like it did in libya easily...
islamabad has to devise very careful and concrete approach towards the issue. frst of all negotiate with them.acceding to some of the separatist ''reasonable'' demands and also convincing them to come to terms with islamabad's as well.....and urgent demands like issue of missing persons,mutilated dead bodies,kill-and-dump activity should all be arrested..
there can be a economic miracle in balochistan through the ustility of Gwadar port...gawadar has magnificient potential to earn large-scale economic gains not only for baloch but fr the whole pakistan....
separatists are hell-bent own their horrifying agenda of re-bifurcating pakistan,their main targets(common masses) should be taken in due-confidence esp.youth....and if there's(and of cousre) foreign element(s) in this conflict,then our spy agencies should be vigilant enought to take notice of this.

__________________
*you can tell more about a person by what he says about others than you can by what others say about him*-leo aikman!