Kashmir is more disputed (as recognized by UN) than balochistan.
THis indian minister is like kasuri coming and commenting on the Northeastern mess in India (of which there is a lot to talk about).
Can you indians please answer me why are you so narrowminded?
I mean you see pakistani speaking out / protesting for balochistan to be not a full-scale military operation YET indians never say anything about their Northeast or the killings in Kashmir by IA (say a lot about militants even majority fake encounters) which is even attested to by intl organizations?
Doesn't it prove the indian mentality AND the 2 nation theory right? :D
There are NO comparisons between Kashmir and Baluchistan AT ALL.
Kashmir is a 55+ year old problem, a muslim-majority area that was supposed to go to Pakistan, but didn't. It has history. Hundreds of thousands of Bharati soldiers have been there for the last many years to quell the uprising and they can barely keep a tense status-quo in that region. The bombs and the killings have been happening for decades now.
What's going on in Baluchistan is limited to a few districts led by rogue government-defying sardars. It's not a dispute, it's more of a minor internal skirmish which is being blown out of proportion here.
u still think that muslim majority means pakistan, then u will have hard time explaining why bangalies split from u. We dont u use helicopter guns and heavy artillary against our civilians.
And about north east. Those are tribals who dont have the majority support.They are elected govts in all these places. Most of them are native police problems. Pakistan can comment on that. But i dont think Indians will say that Pakistan should mind its business.Why do u guys jump up and down when the Indians comment on something in pakistan. Atleast we dont say that Baluchistan belongs to India.
Just get use to the big brother bhai.:)
There are NO comparisons between Kashmir and Baluchistan AT ALL.
Kashmir is a 55+ year old problem, a muslim-majority area that was supposed to go to Pakistan, but didn't. It has history. Hundreds of thousands of Bharati soldiers have been there for the last many years to quell the uprising and they can barely keep a tense status-quo in that region. The bombs and the killings have been happening for decades now.
What's going on in Baluchistan is limited to a few districts led by rogue government-defying sardars. It's not a dispute, it's more of a minor internal skirmish which is being blown out of proportion here.
This should set the record straight.
Many of the natives of Balochistan view the Pak Army the same way as the natives of Kashmir view the Indian Army.
If the view of the majority of Balochistan was adhered to, Pak Army would be gone, and their place as an exploited part of Pakistan would be history as well.
[quote]
India has no business in Pakistan's INTERNAL affairs, period. Last time India did that, millions of people lost their lives. I guess, regional bullies and super power wanna bees don't ever stop and think over what they are doing.
[/quote]
India has every righty to comment on the happenings in Baluch. The last time Pakistan decided to use force against its own civilians, the repurcussions were there for all to see. India was forced to act because of the large scale influx of refugees. India understands that the situation now is different with both the countires being nuclear. India wants to preempt such problems and is advising Pakistan to act before it is too late...
yup muslim majority never meant pakistan in fact the biggest distct of baluchistan kalat used to be indepndent till 1 year after creatin of pakistan and khan of kalat wanted to join india nehru refused due to lack of incongruous border.....
and we all kno about frontier gandhi and his opposition to pakistan idea/... so much so the plebiscite in nwfp for dividion was very very close..
Kalat was ruled by Mir Ahmed Yar Khan, who wanted independence rather than possible Pakistani rule. Indeed, the British had given many Princely States the choice of either India, Pakistan or independence during the immediate pre-partition period (though they were worried of having too many independent nations). When the British eventually gave India (and the newly-created Pakistan) independence in August 1947 Mir Ahmed Yar Khan declared Kalat’s independence. Though this was not a Baloch-wide movement, many Baloch chiefs sympathised with the idea.
In April 1948 the Pakistani army was brought in, and Mir Ahmed Yar Khan signed an accession agreement ending Kalat’s de facto independence. His brother, Prince Abdul Karim, decided to carry on the struggle. Basing himself in Afghanistan he conducted a guerri
Kalat was ruled by Mir Ahmed Yar Khan](Permission error - Wikipedia), who wanted independence rather than possible Pakistani rule. Indeed, the British had given many Princely States the choice of either India, Pakistan or independence during the immediate pre-partition period (though they were worried of having too many independent nations). When the British eventually gave India (and the newly-created Pakistan) independence in August 1947 Mir Ahmed Yar Khan declared Kalat’s independence. Though this was not a Baloch-wide movement, many Baloch chiefs sympathised with the idea.
In April 1948 the Pakistani army was brought in, and Mir Ahmed Yar Khan signed an accession agreement ending Kalat’s de facto independence. His brother, Prince Abdul Karim, decided to carry on the struggle. Basing himself in Afghanistan he conducted a guerrilla war against the Pakistani army. However, this eventually failed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balochistan,_Pakistan
the hindu menatlity as i understand is
bow to the more powerfull and dont let the less-powerfull live.
and they still feel its their rite to poke their nose in other's affairs and all SAARC countries are an example to that.. this hegemonic mentality never goes .. big borther..my ****