Re: Balochistan crisis & its resolution!
What I wrote above regarding restricting inter-provincial migration, then that is accordance with Pakistani constitution. Problem is in making law stricter, water proof, and clear of corruption, contacts, and illegal means.
Problem with Baluchistan is that, people use contacts or illegal means like bribes, lies, forgeries, and frauds to obtain Baluchistan NIC, then domicile, then PRC (Permanent residence certificate).
Advantage is big. For instance, easy admission in professional colleges and easy to obtain good government jobs for settlers (due to low merit requirements in Baluchistan or due to contacts, bribes, etc).
According to Pakistani constitution, keeping two domiciles is illegal, and no person can obtain domicile of another province easily. Actually, it is almost impossible to obtain domicile of another province (or area) legally. Requirement varies, but broadly speaking (from what I know):
A person should be living continuously in area (or province) for years.
A person’s NIC should have permanent address in province.
Father’s domicile was of the province.
Father’s NIC should also show permanent address in province.
A person was born in province or matriculated from province.
Etc.
[Advantage is such that a mediocre student with Baluchistan domicile (as long as he is from preferred province and not Baloch) may get good job in Baluchistan bureaucracy or admission in professional colleges (even in his home province on Baluchistan quota), but same person in home province would be unemployed and would not be able to get admitted in any respectable college].
Now, let see if restricting inter-provincial migration is wrong: Please do not avoid but answer question honestly explaining why (obviously, after reading the situation):
Population of India is so large (and poor) that with little incentive India can change Kashmir from Muslim majority to Hindu majority area. It would benefit India too, as after that they can ask UN for plebiscite and would win it on strength of new settlers. But, even though India considers ‘Jammu & Kashmir’ an integral part of India (unlike Pakistan where all provinces are confederating states), according to Indian constitution, no non-Kashmiri can buy property or land in Kashmir, get residency in Kashmir, or settle in Kashmir. Even a Kashmiri girl marrying outside Kashmir loses right to own property in Kashmir. Kashmir also has own constitution separate from Indian constitution, etc. [Same is true in India for some other areas with tribal population]
So ... what people here think?
A: Should India let Indians settle in Kashmir on pretext of development, integration, assimilation, or whatever... and in process make Kashmir a Hindu-majority state with help of settlers?
Or
B: India should keep present situation, backed by Indian constitution of not letting Indians settle in Kashmir, because we (Pakistanis) believe Kashmir should be exclusively for Kashmiris?
If the answer is 'B' then what about Baluchistan? What is the logic of those who believe that even though Kashmir should be exclusively for Kashmiris, Baluchistan should not be exclusively for Balochs as ‘Pappu’ from Pakistan wants to exploit Baluchistan at the expense of Balochs and make them minority in Baluchistan?
Note: Pakistan considers Kashmir as disputed territory but India do not, still India without any commitments or pressure is trying to maintain Kashmiri identity for Kashmir, even though that is politically a disadvantage for them ... and when it comes to Baluchistan, some people feel so bad when anyone says that Baluchistan should also hold its Baloch identity or Baloch majority in Baluchistan. Why?
