I would like to forward the idea that the Northern Areas of Pakistan should be merged with Azad Kashmir, with administration from Muzz. instead of Islamabad.
I don’t think the bureaucrats in Islamabad have any idea about the unique culture and diversity of the valleys of the Northern Areas. Both politically (they are originally part of Kashmir) and economically (lack of development) will be rectified by the proper devolution of power.
Re: Northern Areas
the burecrats in Islamabad don't even have an idea of Islamabad. They are most busy in partying and taking off-shore trips.
Re: Northern Areas
It should be their own state. Azad Kashmir and Northern Areas are only politicaly aligned, but not really culturally.
It should be their own state. Azad Kashmir and Northern Areas are only politicaly aligned, but not really culturally.
True, but as constituent unit of Kashmir (pre 1947) creating two separate states might be problematic legally. Besides Pakistan's provinces are not based on cultural alignments, they are administrative (largely colonial) creations.
I would like to forward the idea that the Northern Areas of Pakistan should be merged with Azad Kashmir, with administration from Muzz. instead of Islamabad.
I don't think the bureaucrats in Islamabad have any idea about the unique culture and diversity of the valleys of the Northern Areas. Both politically (they are originally part of Kashmir) and economically (lack of development) will be rectified by the proper devolution of power.
those were sold to Haree Singh Dogra for 4 million only so you count them a part of Kashmeer. Those areas should be given status of a province till the independance of Kashmeer.
those were sold to Haree Singh Dogra for 4 million only so you count them a part of Kashmeer. Those areas should be given status of a province till the independance of Kashmeer.
Again, I agree with you and its a historical fact. Either way, the northern areas should have locally based governance.
The people of Northern area have more similarities with Pashtuns than any other ethnic group in Pakistan. I remember when I was a student in Karachi, the students from NA would always feel very comfortable with us and they would always hang out with Pashtuns. They never liked Kashmiris, Punjabis or Sindhis. All non-pashtun would always call them Khan sahib because of their appearance and accent, and they would like that, they would not tell anyone that they are not Pashtuns.
The people of Northern area have more similarities with Pashtuns than any other ethnic group in Pakistan. I remember when I was a student in Karachi, the students from NA would always feel very comfortable with us and they would always hang out with Pashtuns. They never liked Kashmiris, Punjabis or Sindhis. All non-pashtun would always call them Khan sahib because of their appearance and accent, and they would like that, they would not tell anyone that they are not Pashtuns.
Generally, I have seen completely opposite of this personally at every place in Karachi. Not just people from northern areas, but sarhad people like chitralis and hindkos rarely mingled with pashtuns. Never really put too much thought on this, but to them pushtuns being the dominant ethnicity in the north, there were some obvious resentments towards them. Many of them were more aligned with punjabis politically.
And I have yet to meet ANY chitrali, hunzakot, balti etc. who would not make sure that no one ever confused them for pashtun or pathan. They all hated that comparison. It's almost like confusing a pashtun for a tajik or vice versa.
Generally, I have seen completely opposite of this personally at every place in Karachi. Not just people from northern areas, but sarhad people like chitralis and hindkos rarely mingled with pashtuns. Never really put too much thought on this, but to them pushtuns being the dominant ethnicity in the north, there were some obvious resentments towards them. Many of them were more aligned with punjabis politically.
And I have yet to meet ANY chitrali, hunzakot, balti etc. who would not make sure that no one ever confused them for pashtun or pathan. They all hated that comparison. It's almost like confusing a pashtun for a tajik or vice versa.
I can't speak for the situation in Karachi, but in the ACTUAL Northern areas, there is very little resentment towards Pakhtuns. I spent a summer in there, and after Urdu, Pakhto is the second most used language of communication. Pakistan's high diversity in languages is probably based on the many different dialects from one valley to another. Even Shina varies as you progress towards Gilgit. Besides no one is talking about a merger of Northern Areas with Pakhtunkhwa, instead they should haveself governance AWAY from Islamabad.
Maybe they're resentful in Karachi because people are generally ignorant in assigning ethnicities?
I can't speak for the situation in Karachi, but in the ACTUAL Northern areas, there is very little resentment towards Pakhtuns. I spent a summer in there, and after Urdu, Pakhto is the second most used language of communication. Pakistan's high diversity in languages is probably based on the many different dialects from one valley to another. Even Shina varies as you progress towards Gilgit. Besides no one is talking about a merger of Northern Areas with Pakhtunkhwa, instead they should haveself governance AWAY from Islamabad.
Maybe they're resentful in Karachi because people are generally ignorant in assigning ethnicities?
The ethnic melting pot of Karachi does on occasion magnify difference that may be lurking on the surface. Pashto being the dominant language in the region, doesn't surprise me if non pashtuns in the region speak it. There are quite a few pashto speaking people in the area who are not ethnic pushtuns.
But on a political level, I have heard and read the comment often from people in northern areas of grievances towards nwfp. My point is that "lapak's" premise is incorrect that just because people are of the same area, they are automatically on good relations. In most cases, the opposite can be true. After all, both pushtuns and farsiwans are of Iranic culture, but we all know their history, yet the Indics of punjab have gotten along better with the Iranic pushtuns.
But on a political level, I have heard and read the comment often from people in northern areas of grievances towards nwfp. My point is that "lapak's" premise is incorrect that just because people are of the same area, they are automatically on good relations. In most cases, the opposite can be true. After all, both pushtuns and farsiwans are of Iranic culture, but we all know their history, yet the Indics of punjab have gotten along better with the Iranic pushtuns.
Which group in Pakistan doesn't have grievances or issues? The question is whether they are justified or not. Pakthuns in the Northern Areas blend into the region instead of sticking out as foreigners. I remember seeing seeing flatland Pakistani tourists on travels/honeymoons/school trips who acted like complete foreigners in their own country. Ofcourse they would stick to the 'touristy places' like Chitral, Hunza, Gilgit etc.
You just can't make broad political statements like believing that Iranic peoples are somehow expected to stick together because of some cultural commonalities. If that was true, I would venture to say that most Pakistanis were in deep denial vis a vis India. I don't speak for other Iranic peoples but I do know that Pakhtun and Baluch fall under supratribal societies which is remarkably different from other Western Iranics.
The people of NA are not Iranian people, they are Dardic people. Only one tribe in Kashmir called Suddan(Saduzai) have Pashtun origin. Here is a link for your info:
Re: Northern Areas
^
I don't think he was saying that people of NA are Iranian people.
Anyway, back to the topic: local control for NA should be a priority.
^
I don't think he was saying that people of NA are Iranian people.
Anyway, back to the topic: local control for NA should be a priority.
Sorry, what I meant was indo-iranian group or iranic people. They are indo-european but not Indo-iranian.
Sorry, what I meant was indo-iranian group or iranic people. They are indo-european but not Indo-iranian.
Right. Like I said before they are still close to Pakhtuns due to regional similarities. It's a similar situation to Nuristan in Afghanistan, where Nuristanis might not be Pakhtun, but they are still integrated into the local region.
I don't think we need to use Karachi as an example because many people there think that every Khan is Pakhtun and can't tell the difference between a Gilgiti and a Pakhtun.
Agha Khan has invested a lot in NA and Chitral, he has an eye on that region. He has the power to buy any one in Islamabad, looks like NA will stay the way it is now.
We can cut and merge things 1000 ways and the problems will still be there.
Pakistani intellectuals love to name / rename / "name name" things for a superficial satisfaction and egotistic goals.
The reality is that for every region there are some needs that must be met "Locally" by "raising money locally".
Then there are needs that must be met using Federal power and Federal funds.
BIG projects like super highways? Ask the feds to plan and fund the project. the more you struggle to convince the Feds, the more chances you have for the highways to be built.
But if you want to fix your street, or local roads, then do not run to the Feds. Do it yourself.
Garbage disposal, fix it locally.
Running schools? Run them at district level. Do not go to Feds.
Clean water. Raise funds locally and pay the bills to maintain them.
BIG Power plants? Ask the feds to issue permits and then raise the funds and build them as soon as you can.
But for God's sake, quit talking about breaking provinces or mixing them to set up "uber nationalities".
You speak Punjabi. So what, speak it and enjoy it.
You speak Urdu, well who can stop you from that. Just don't ask for a Urdawa province.
You speak Pukhto. Great. But do not make the language as a basis for a separate province.
And when in doubt, remember one thing.
--- It is economy estuPeed.
However, the pushtuns are an iranic people, so since people of NA are not of iranic origin this makes them even more different than pushtuns.
Which group in Pakistan doesn't have grievances or issues? The question is whether they are justified or not. Pakthuns in the Northern Areas blend into the region instead of sticking out as foreigners. I remember seeing seeing flatland Pakistani tourists on travels/honeymoons/school trips who acted like complete foreigners in their own country. Ofcourse they would stick to the 'touristy places' like Chitral, Hunza, Gilgit etc.
You just can't make broad political statements like believing that Iranic peoples are somehow expected to stick together because of some cultural commonalities. If that was true, I would venture to say that most Pakistanis were in deep denial vis a vis India. I don't speak for other Iranic peoples but I do know that Pakhtun and Baluch fall under supratribal societies which is remarkably different from other Western Iranics.
You just proved my point. People's similarity or close proximity doesn't account for much when it comes to fighting over resources.
You just proved my point. People's similarity or close proximity doesn't account for much when it comes to fighting over resources.
How so? In this case there is really no fight for resources. NA funding is directly drawn from Isb, and while there are pockets of Pakhtun settlements in NA, it's not like there is a major migration going on.