He voiced a common Baloch complaint when he said that no adequate compensation was offered to the province while royalties were paid to other provinces for the use of their natural resources.
Everyone in this thread is more knowledgeable than me in this issue so sorry for my ignorance - the above is not accurate is it? If royalties are being paid to other provinces, it's equally across the board to ALL right?
If you look at the consequences of the event, you would find two rivial tribes, Bugtis and Mazari, attacking each other with rockets, sabotaging lives of millions of Pakistanis, causing economic damage to the country.
*He also touched base with the Baloch nationalist demand that full autonomy be given to the province including the right to sell its natural resources on the international market. *
Hail, Gwadar!
RF: The closest thing the Pashtuns have to a National Force is the MMA, my comment was actually a criticism of Sharabi's comment about Bugti's. He was making an uneccesary generalisation and that too about an incident nobody is sure who committed. I am no fan of Akbar Bugti's, and I am fairly confident with time and proper investment the Baluchi's will break away from the hold of their Sardars. Their are positive signs, the best being Zubedia Jalal.
Nadia: According to Pakistan's constitution, Provinces like Sarhad and Baluchistan being the poorest (industrially and revenue) wise are supposed to receive royalties for the use of Natural resources. Unfortunately the amounts the federal government agreed to were quite small in comparison to almost all other federation-province formula's internationally. And despite that the federal government repeatedly defaulted on payment of even the agreed amount. Forcing the Provinces into deficits and putting them under debt.
I should add despite that no act of violence should go unpunished.
Thanks a million, Zakk, as i expected your explanation really made perfect sense. :k: :k:
Many thanks, much appreciated.
Oh yeah, you can have a discussion of royalities to turn the real situation around i.e.. fight b/w two tribes.
Gas supply will be restored in 3 days: Jatoi
ISLAMABAD: Federal Minister for Industries and Production, Liaquat Ali Jatoi assured on Friday gas supply to industries would resume within next three days.
The pipeline, which blasted on Tuesday after it was hit by a rocket, had been repaired. But as soon as gas was pumped into the pipeline, the repaired part ripped open again causing the restoration of gas supply to delay for another three days, he told a press conference here. **“It is hoped … it would be restored within next three days.”
“Strict action would be taken against those involved in the incident”,** he warned and played down the damage saying, “The suspension of gas supply had little impact on fertiliser industry as the factories were closed for repair work”.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Zakk: *
RF: The closest thing the Pashtuns have to a National Force is the MMA, my comment was actually a criticism of Sharabi's comment about Bugti's. He was making an uneccesary generalisation and that too about an incident nobody is sure who committed. I am no fan of Akbar Bugti's, and I am fairly confident with time and proper investment the Baluchi's will break away from the hold of their Sardars. Their are positive signs, the best being Zubedia Jalal.
[/QUOTE]
Salaam Zakk,
I realize your context. Yes Zubaida Jalal is definately a bright spot. Also read the informative opinion piece about the gas crisis. I just wanted to say that if Sardar Bugti's intentions are for a more autonomous Baluchistan then they could be accomadated but I suspect that his call for autonomy is really a thinly veiled secession attempt. Not to mention that the Mazaris are more dominant in Baluch politics.
The main reason for the backwardness of Balochistan and Sindh is primarily feudalism and all its associated components. Yes, the federal government can aid the people of these areas to rid themselves of feudals, but it is the primary responsibilty of the peoples in these areas to take on the feudals. We now have the most pro-Balochistan government in Pakistan's history, and the people of Balochistan must now use this great opportunity to challenge feudalism.
is this thing under control yet?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Jagjeevan: *
is this thing under control yet?
[/QUOTE]
Yeppie Yeppie, yeah yeah.....
Malik: The Federal government has a sad history of allying itself with Feudals to break the people rather then ally themselves with people who are more progressive. Why? Because they are easier to control and bribe. In the end you can appoint 50 Baluchi's as Ministers and PM's, but it's a matter of the integrity and vision of the individuals to make a difference after all I think the Musharraf government was probably more pro Baluchi then the present Jamali one.
Jamali should have rushed to the area and resolved these issues. More importantly he should ensure NOBODY goes around with heavy weapons.
Zakk bhai, just one simple question. The wadera's, feudals, khans and sardars etc of Balochistan, interior Sindh and large parts of Sarhad - who exactly are they if not natives of these areas? Not federal government appointed (non-native) agents surely?
Malik: Progressive elements came to power in the Frontier and Baluchistan in the 1970's. They people voted for them, the federal government preferred to promote horse trading and use its authority to dismiss one provincial government, and split the other one.
More recently, the Sindh government was formed by splitting the PPP and MMA and the PPP's mostly feudal members from Southern Punjab were intimidated or bribed to vote for the Jamali government.
I don't deny the people "appointed" as CM's or otherwise are locals, (nor am I against people who own land) but do they have a clue about the needs and problems of their province or even local community? I doubt it..has the Federal govt ever prioritied a province ( again excepting Musharraf's government) that if it was more autonomous would be far richer then any of the other provinces? No.
On another note Feudalism wise: Sarhad is the least Feudal of the 4 Provinces.
Originally posted by Zakk:
[quote]
Malik: Progressive elements came to power in the Frontier and Baluchistan in the 1970's. They people voted for them, the federal government preferred to promote horse trading and use its authority to dismiss one provincial government, and split the other one.
[/quote]
All correct. But all done by the grandest of Sindhi feudal around - Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. Did you forget to mention that fact?
[quote]
More recently, the Sindh government was formed by splitting the PPP and MMA....
[/quote]
Not entirely correct. The PPP-P even before the "horsetrading" had only 67 of the 165 seats in the Sindh assembly - 16 short of a simple majority. Even with the 10 members of the MMA and 1 from the Haqiqi lot it could not form the government. All the other parties combined (MQM, PML Q, PML F, NA) had 87 members - safetly over the threshold of 83. Some PPPP-P lotas thrown in did not make that much difference to the formation of the Sindh government. Go check the figures if you want...:)
Was the MMA "split" or stopped from forming a government in NWFP? No.
Was the MMA denied its due representation in the government of Balochistan? No.
I believe that the PML-Q and MMA have even joined an electoral alliance in the Federal Capital Territory for the Senate elections? Is that stopping the MMA from winning its due share of seats in the FCT? No.
So please when making comparisons with the deeds of Sindhi feudal Prime Ministers of the 1970's and the "elected" successors, please state the full facts.
[quote]
I don't deny the people "appointed" as CM's or otherwise are locals, (nor am I against people who own land) but do they have a clue about the needs and problems of their province or even local community?
[/quote]
I asked you about feudals in general, not about those who are appointed to high positions in federal governments. Does the federal government appoint the feudals, sardars, wadera's, khans etc to "lead" their tribes and peoples. Who does?
[quote]
On another note Feudalism wise: Sarhad is the least Feudal of the 4 Provinces.
[/QUOTE]
Thanks for that information.
Altough i am a pathan, i coundnt care less for the Tribal and Feaudal systems in NWFP and BALOCHISTAN. It's factions and idiots like these neanderthallic dinosaurs that are hindering Pakistan's gwroth and prosperity, and furthermore they cast a very dusky shadow on our beautiful nation.
We shoudld ask the government to hire private security firms to protect these facilities and let the army blow these insignificant fools to hell.
:Bravo:
Salam again Malik, actually ZAB was a relatively minor Feudal of Sindh, that’s a well known fact, he used to be looked down upon by many Sindhi Feudals. His part did not win a 2/3rd majority with a 60% voter turn out because he was Feudal . But yes he was responsible for those acts and so was his daughter responsible for the toppling of the Frontier government in 1994.
Hmm I think we’re diverting to the realm of other provinces politics here, but the Musharraf establishment has a problem with the PPP, if the PPP had a majority in Frontier I am fairly confident there would have been a split. A good read on what’s happened in Sindh can be read here
here
Land lord Feudalism exists in most South Asian Societies, it existed in India (before the land reforms of the 50’s) it exists in the Southern belt of the Punjab, parts of the frontier and vast areas in Interior Sindh. Do the people deserve to stay like that because of some old traditions? No, they don’t, now how do you change that? Well you invest in the area, provide jobs to locals, and in case of Baluchistan you shouldn’t need to invest much because it’s a mineral rich area which supplies much of Pakistan’s gas and copper. Once you create an environment where people know they don’t have to go to their Sardars or Maliks or Chaudhrys or Khans for Justice and employment the Feudal system collapses.
Originally posted by Zakk:
[quote]
Salam again Malik, actually ZAB was a relatively minor Feudal of Sindh, that's a well known fact, he used to be looked down upon by many Sindhi Feudals. His part did not win a 2/3rd majority with a 60% voter turn out because he was Feudal . But yes he was responsible for those acts and so was his daughter responsible for the toppling of the Frontier government in 1994.
[/quote]
Yes quite true. But unlike them the present government has widely respected the mandate of the MMA in NWFP, Balochistan and the FCT, and let them rule in accordance with the peoples wishes. There lies a crucial difference from the past.
[quote]
Hmm I think we're diverting to the realm of other provinces politics here, but the Musharraf establishment has a problem with the PPP, if the PPP had a majority in Frontier I am fairly confident there would have been a split.
[/quote]
The PPP-P did not even have a majority in Sindh this time, let alone anywhere else. As I stated earlier The PPP-P even before the "horsetrading" had only **67* of the 165 seats in the Sindh assembly - 16 short of a simple majority. Even with the 10 members of the MMA and 1 from the Haqiqi lot it could not form the government. All the other parties combined (MQM, PML Q, PML F, NA) had 87 members - safetly over the threshold of 83. Some PPPP-P lotas thrown in did not make that much difference to the formation of the Sindh government.* Do you reject these actual electoral figures?
[quote]
Land lord Feudalism exists in most South Asian Societies, it existed in India (before the land reforms of the 50's) it exists in the Southern belt of the Punjab, parts of the frontier and vast areas in Interior Sindh. Do the people deserve to stay like that because of some old traditions?
[/quote]
No of course not. But do the people themselves not have a primary responsibilty to play a leading role in challenging the power of their feudals?
What we need is a national dialogue for the future of Pakistan. In order for national integration to be solidified, people from Baluchistan need to feel that they are indeed part of Pakistan not beholden to their Sardars. It is my understanding that a large portion of Baluchi society is alienated from Pakistan, and I don't blame them. From 1947 on, Baluchistan has received an unfair deal.
The disposing of the Khan of Kalat could have been done better in 1948, we could done a better job opening universities and other infustructure in the province. We should have shifted our Naval Headquarters there from Karachi a long time ago and should have recruited. We could have listened to the concerns of the average Baluchi rather than leading them towards a path of secession in the 70s. We all know ZAB's role in that mess. I hate Zia-ul-Haq for what he did to Pakistan but give the man credit when it's due. It was Zia who gave clemency to the Baluchi rebels and their leadership. If he had not done that we would be hearing about a situation worse than karachi.
We messed up royally in Baluchistan, heck up till recently, Baluchistan had less development than E.Pakistan had from 1947-1971. I am glad to see Gwadar developed, but we need to do a lot more espicially in terms of education and medical facilities. Proud to say that PNS (Pakistan Naval Services) is 50% Baluchi. But let us not pat us on the back just yet, theres still much more to do. My apologies for the string of somewhat incoherent statements.
[QUOTE]
Yes quite true. But unlike them the present government has widely respected the mandate of the MMA in NWFP, Balochistan and the FCT, and let them rule in accordance with the peoples wishes. There lies a crucial difference from the past.
[/QUOTE]
One MMA MNA who deals in government contracts was warned of the consequences of not voting for Jamali. In the FCT, the alliance you spoke of was because of JI Leader Professor Ghafoor and his close family relations with the Chaudhry's. Dating back to the PNA days. Whether the present government is a departure from the past is open to question, after all 5 years is a long time in politics.
[QUOTE]
The PPP-P did not even have a majority in Sindh this time, let alone anywhere else. As I stated earlier The PPP-P even before the "horsetrading" had only 67 of the 165 seats in the Sindh assembly - 16 short of a simple majority. Even with the 10 members of the MMA and 1 from the Haqiqi lot it could not form the government. All the other parties combined (MQM, PML Q, PML F, NA) had 87 members - safetly over the threshold of 83. Some PPPP-P lotas thrown in did not make that much difference to the formation of the Sindh government. Do you reject these actual electoral figures?
[/QUOTE]
No I don't reject the electoral figures you quoted.
it is my undestanding of Parliamentry Democracy that the Constitutional head "invites" the leader of the largest Party to form a government. the Musharraf government changed the rules right after the election.
[QUOTE]
No of course not. But do the people themselves not have a primary responsibilty to play a leading role in challenging the power of their feudals?
[/QUOTE]
Of course they do; let me compare Saudi Arabia with Baluchistan, Saudi Arabia was as backwards and tribal/feudal as Baluchistan. With all the money at the governments disposal they accelerated the development and broke old tribal and feudal structures even in places where the locals were unable to or uninterested in changing the old ways.
Originally posted by Zakk
[quote]
Whether the present government is a departure from the past is open to question, after all 5 years is a long time in politics.
[/quote]
But up till now you cannot really counter or deny my statement that the present government has widely respected the mandate of the MMA in NWFP, Balochistan and the FCT, and let them rule in accordance with the peoples wishes. Thank you.
[quote]
No I don't reject the electoral figures you quoted.
[/quote]
Thank you.
[quote]
it is my undestanding of Parliamentry Democracy that the Constitutional head "invites" the leader of the largest Party to form a government.
[/quote]
Wrong again. Here is the relevant article in the constitution of Pakistan to disprove that notion:-
The Governor shall appoint from amongst the members of the Provincial Assembly a Chief Minister which, in his opinion, is likely to command the confidence of the **majority* of the members of the provincial Assembly* - Article 130 (2)
So as you can see not the largest party, but the person who commands the majority. Even before any supposed "floor-crossing/lotas" etc the MQM, PML (QA), NA and PML (F) together commanded a majority - figures that you don't dispute. Their candidate commanded the majority of the Assembly, and hence in line with the constitution the Governor invited him to become the Chief Minister.
[quote]
Of course they do; let me compare Saudi Arabia with Baluchistan, Saudi Arabia was as backwards and tribal/feudal as Baluchistan. With all the money at the governments disposal they accelerated the development and broke old tribal and feudal structures even in places where the locals were unable to or uninterested in changing the old ways.
.
[/quote]
Have you ever been to Saudi Arabia? Do you think tribal and feudal structures have been eradicated in that country? One would say they have been institutionalised at every level. Feudals and feudalism represent cultural and historical manifestations of a group of people, and it is primarily upto the people themselves to take the lead in ridding themselves of this curse. If you want the central government to take charge of this, then be prepared for a more centralised and interfering federal government, which I am sure you are not in favour of?
pakistan should have included the letter "b" in pakistan .
always problem with provinces that start with letter"b"
so dont neglect the "b" provinces.