Why dont we put issues like Kalabagh Dam for the vote? voting does not solve everything. imagine if Punjab NWFP Sindh - the 3 affected provinces hadto vote for Kalbagh dam?
there are many pakhtuns who are not bothered about a name changing and many who believe a neutralname should exist. sadly they arenot being heard. the ANP have ethnicicised the issue. Anybody seen as anti-name change is seen as anti-Pakhtun. thats not true atall. its not abot it being blocked - its about realising the reality - a multi ethnic province.
Its is depriving people of their cultural rights and it ignores their culture. The people of Hazara division and Chitral are not Pakhtuns - there are some Pakhtuns in Hazara but but they are no way near a majority. It wont be long before the ANP wont to Pashtunize the whole province - next they will demand the NWFP assembly speak pashtu.
The ANP should be decent enough to allow the people of Hazara and Chitral to opt out or are they nothing but subjugated races? For decades the ANP lived off Punjab being the bad guy in Pakisan yet they prove themselves to be no better.
I think we're going around in circles here. In democracy, the majority wins. Are you saying that the majority of 'NWFP' does NOT support a name change? If so, please provide some proof.
Whether the name change occurs through parliamentary procedure or an outright referendum, the Chitralis and the Hazara should have the full right to participate in the process. If you're confident that the name change can be blocked, then there is no need for discussion. When you're talking about a democratic process, the will of the majority will rule. The majority opinion is to change the name of the province, the rest of the arguments simply do not fly.
It's a name change, not depriving people of their economic or political rights. This isn't about singling out ethnic groups or silencing minority voices. The elected leaders of Chitral, Haara division have every right to voice their opposition and they have (ANP is not denying their rights to oppose), however this is about the will majority not the deprivation of minority rights. So I am not even sure where your comparison applies.
They were colonial names that were changed to indigenous names. There was no argument, no protests when that occurred. When the majority of one province in one federation feels so strongly about an issue and has elected a party both on the provincial and the national level to make the change happen, who are you deny these rights? It's a name change not the construction of a dam or a royalty issue.
Under the modern sociological definition Sindh, Punjab are all ethnic names. Please don't even try that argument that Punjab stands for 5 rivers, because it is seen as an ethnic identity. Same applies to Sindh.
What do you say about Baluchistan? There are significant Pakhtuns in Baluchistan, the name itself stands for "The land of the Baluchis" yet there isn't a Pakhtun movement calling "to share" the name or some other nonsensical proposal mentioned on this thread.