KP belongs to Afghans, no one can force them out: Mahmood Achakzai

[Mentee]

Just to clarify: the numbers do not include my vote. I am not counting myself. You, perhaps, not myself.

Aren't you a little premature in saying no links?



I have a medical condition.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obstructive_sleep_apnea

Oh iam so sorry to know that ----take care of yourself n good night subha bat kry gy

 

[Sach Media]

He should be tried on treason charges or sent back to Afghanistan.

He should be tried on treason charges or sent back to Afghanistan.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Why do you say this?

Just to be provocative. He knows that some dimwit, somewhere, will come out with this sooner or later, and is being very sarcastic and anticipating that remark.

Pakistani pushtoons voted to join Pakistan in referendum, they gave their weapons to Quaid as token of loyalty. That's why they are part of Pakistan not Afghanistan

You should check your numbers. How many were in the population, how many were cherry-picked to vote, how many actually voted and what that represents of the population.

Pakistan should stop settling down more Afghan refugees in Pakistan or they will claim KP in future as we are starting to hear voices now.

Afghans i have met hate Pakistan intencely, while Iran they have no issu with. In Iran afghans have never been alloud out of refugee area, while in Pakistan they have mixed up with rest of the population all over the country.

Have you met many Afghans? This is a straight question, and depending on your answer, another follows.

 

[pzfz]

You have to calculate the number who took part and the number who were debarred. Look at the opinion below, and observe how he has done the math (not an Indian author, btw).


Meghnad Desai, "The Rediscovery of India", for starters.

@Mentee Please note.

Another comment which is an opinion merely but illustrates what a farce took place:

Muhammed Iqbal Chawla writes:----

"As the last Viceroy of India, Mountbatten presided over the transfer of power which involved both independence and the division of the subcontinent in 1947. While dividing India it was decided that the wish of the people through the democratic process is sought, for or against, inclusion within Pakistan. In the two major Muslim majority provinces of Bengal and Punjab this was determined by the vote of their representatives in the legislature. In the provinces of the NWFP, Baluchistan and Assam however this was determined by a referendum. The Congress had opted to abstain from the referendum in the NWFP, and its outcome was a heavy mandate for Pakistan but even after that the ruling Congress Ministry refused to resign. Mountbatten refrained from using his discretionary powers to dismiss Dr Khan Sahib’s ministry, consequently, the Government of Pakistan, after it came into being, dismissed it, for it believed that the Congress party had lost every legal or moral foundation to be in power as the people had given a clear verdict in favour of Pakistan and against the Congress government in the Referendum.------------------The author takes the position that Mountbatten, despite the controversy with which he is regarded in Pakistan, played an instrumental role in the accession of NWFP to Pakistan. This was by no means a forgone conclusion in the wake of the Muslim League’s poor showing in the 1946 Frontier Provincial elections.His decision that a referendum should be held enabled the Muslim League to galvanize popular sentiment for inclusion in Pakistan, despite the presence of a Congress ministry----"

Congress abstaining, along with Khudai Khidmatgar, a farce and a shameful farce , this referendum was. And the key reasons were:

A: It was not based on adult franchise, Voting was restricted
B. Not all Pakhtoons were allowed to participate in the referendum that would seal not only their fate but that of their brothers in Afghanistan
C. The tribal Pakhtoons were not allowed to vote. In the population of 3.5 Million only 0.6 Million were allowed to vote
D. 6 Tribal agencies were barred from it
E. The States of Sawat, Dir,Amb, and Chitral were also not allowed to participate

Any referendum that disenfranchises such a large number of population can never be called a legitimate exercise of “self determination”. It has no political, legal and moral authority whatsoever.

As Khudai khidmatgar of Abdul Ghaffar Khan boycotted the Plebiscite, the lone contender in the fray, the Muslim League, won the vote by default, as only 0.6 Millions (17%) out of 3.5 millions of the population were allowed to vote in the Plebiscite and only 51% (2,92 lakhs) of this voted. Muslim League got only 51% votes. The remaining votes of 49% were double stamped. Remember, 83% or nearly 29 lakhs did not participate and Muslim league had got only 51% of 17%, who were asked to vote.

The Results:

Population : 35 Lakhs
Number of people allowed : 5,72,799
Polled votes (51%): 2,92,118
For Pakistan (51.5%) 2,89,244
For India 2,874

51.5% of the allowed Voters , Voted for Pakistan.Is this the result of a referendum that sealed the fate of Millions of Pakhtoons? With the disenfranchisment of 29 lakhs, it can’t even be called a majority vote.

No one understands Nehru's motive, other than influence of Louis Mountbatten and his wife. Ever since PAKHTOONS have been a thorn in the flesh of Pakistan. Pakistan never had its writ run over seven tribal areas of FATA.

Had third option been allowed to Khudai Khidmatgars of an independent state , they would have participated in the Plebiscite. Then, they would have got 90% votes due to Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan and then NORTH WEST FRONTIER PROVINCE would have been Independent state. In any case, once the elected assembly had the majority, the need for refrendum was not understood. Like Bengal and Punjab, NWFP assembly should have decided on the fate of PATHANISTAN. But Nehru ditched Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan.

Seems you have quoted a rambling post from pakteahouse blog "history is not a farce". I would refer you to the excellent series on NWFP by Yasir Latif Hamdani on the same pakteahouse site for a better understanding of the politics being raked up regarding the referendum.

A - Voting was restricted - It was decided by all parties that the 1946 voter list was to be used, the same list congress/kk claimed victory on in 1946.
B - Not all pashtuns were allowed... - I don't even know what that is supposed to mean, but if the sited author thinks that pashtuns in afghanistan should have a right to vote on a matter NOT IN afghanistan but in british india then i can't help him. Again the British, in consultation with congress and ml, decided the parameters of referendum - the same parameters that congress/kk was perfectly fine with just an year earlier. It was decided for all of british india not in princely states that there was to be no third option i.e. independence.
C/D - Tribal pashtuns were not allowed to vote - Tribal pashtuns were not part of NWFP but of FATA. Besides they held tribal jirgas to join Pakistan. The same tribal pashtuns who lambasted ghafar khan for bringing nehru (in addition to stoning him) to their homelands.
E - Chitral, Swat, Dir, Amb etc - were all princely states and not part of NWFP. As you well know princely states decided on their own. No issues here unlike JK, Hyderabad, & Junagadh because the rulers and subjects were the same and of the same mind. Why would you using their supposed disenfranchisement as a vote against Pakistan?

You may not be familiar with the political history of KK/ANP but the fact of the matter is that its support has been and remains limited to the charsadda/peshawar valley region. Chitral - not even pashtun -, Swat, Dir, Amb, Kohistan - not even pashtun -, Hazara division - not even pashtun -, and FATA were never strong proponents of kk and its pet project of pashtunistan.

Third option for independence was rejected by Nehru because it would affect other areas of British India. The much-hyped boycott would have made no difference as only 15% of eligible voters - even less if we go by your math - failed to show up to the referendum. I'll be generous and give that 15% as part of the49% of eligible votes NOT CAST to KK, and that still would've have made a difference in the outcome of a resounding MAJORITY win by ML. KK boycotted like a petulant child but even it could see that it had no support for its position.

Votes in any elections are not counted by which percentage of the TOTAL population (children under voting age, too old, tribal customs, people simply not interested, people already knowing the likely outcome etc) votes. That's like saying only 61 million out of 341 million (17%) voted for obama in the last elections and thus the results are rigged and a farce. Votes are counted by votes casted, thus Pakistan got over 99% of NWFP votes.

My point remains, that your numerical jugglery in no way justifies you characterizing the 49% as against Pakistan and/or for India/Afghanistan/Pashtunistan. Those 49% included the boycott of kk. Turnout was about 15% less. You seem to be in a hurry to bracket all non-votees as the boycotted votes. One can surmise that this 15% is the boycotted votes and in no way sullies the MAJORITY votes attained by the ML. The same voting list (apparently disenfranchised) and a slightly higher turnout of 15% in the previous elections was enough for congress/kk to claim NWFP but not enough for ML to claim a decisive victory of over 99%?

 

[Armstrong]

You have to calculate the number who took part and the number who were debarred. Look at the opinion below, and observe how he has done the math (not an Indian author, btw).


Meghnad Desai, "The Rediscovery of India", for starters.

@Mentee Please note.

Another comment which is an opinion merely but illustrates what a farce took place:

Muhammed Iqbal Chawla writes:----

"As the last Viceroy of India, Mountbatten presided over the transfer of power which involved both independence and the division of the subcontinent in 1947. While dividing India it was decided that the wish of the people through the democratic process is sought, for or against, inclusion within Pakistan. In the two major Muslim majority provinces of Bengal and Punjab this was determined by the vote of their representatives in the legislature. In the provinces of the NWFP, Baluchistan and Assam however this was determined by a referendum. The Congress had opted to abstain from the referendum in the NWFP, and its outcome was a heavy mandate for Pakistan but even after that the ruling Congress Ministry refused to resign. Mountbatten refrained from using his discretionary powers to dismiss Dr Khan Sahib’s ministry, consequently, the Government of Pakistan, after it came into being, dismissed it, for it believed that the Congress party had lost every legal or moral foundation to be in power as the people had given a clear verdict in favour of Pakistan and against the Congress government in the Referendum.------------------The author takes the position that Mountbatten, despite the controversy with which he is regarded in Pakistan, played an instrumental role in the accession of NWFP to Pakistan. This was by no means a forgone conclusion in the wake of the Muslim League’s poor showing in the 1946 Frontier Provincial elections.His decision that a referendum should be held enabled the Muslim League to galvanize popular sentiment for inclusion in Pakistan, despite the presence of a Congress ministry----"

Congress abstaining, along with Khudai Khidmatgar, a farce and a shameful farce , this referendum was. And the key reasons were:

A: It was not based on adult franchise, Voting was restricted
B. Not all Pakhtoons were allowed to participate in the referendum that would seal not only their fate but that of their brothers in Afghanistan
C. The tribal Pakhtoons were not allowed to vote. In the population of 3.5 Million only 0.6 Million were allowed to vote
D. 6 Tribal agencies were barred from it
E. The States of Sawat, Dir,Amb, and Chitral were also not allowed to participate

Any referendum that disenfranchises such a large number of population can never be called a legitimate exercise of “self determination”. It has no political, legal and moral authority whatsoever.

As Khudai khidmatgar of Abdul Ghaffar Khan boycotted the Plebiscite, the lone contender in the fray, the Muslim League, won the vote by default, as only 0.6 Millions (17%) out of 3.5 millions of the population were allowed to vote in the Plebiscite and only 51% (2,92 lakhs) of this voted. Muslim League got only 51% votes. The remaining votes of 49% were double stamped. Remember, 83% or nearly 29 lakhs did not participate and Muslim league had got only 51% of 17%, who were asked to vote.

The Results:

Population : 35 Lakhs
Number of people allowed : 5,72,799
Polled votes (51%): 2,92,118
For Pakistan (51.5%) 2,89,244
For India 2,874

51.5% of the allowed Voters , Voted for Pakistan.Is this the result of a referendum that sealed the fate of Millions of Pakhtoons? With the disenfranchisment of 29 lakhs, it can’t even be called a majority vote.

No one understands Nehru's motive, other than influence of Louis Mountbatten and his wife. Ever since PAKHTOONS have been a thorn in the flesh of Pakistan. Pakistan never had its writ run over seven tribal areas of FATA.

Had third option been allowed to Khudai Khidmatgars of an independent state , they would have participated in the Plebiscite. Then, they would have got 90% votes due to Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan and then NORTH WEST FRONTIER PROVINCE would have been Independent state. In any case, once the elected assembly had the majority, the need for refrendum was not understood. Like Bengal and Punjab, NWFP assembly should have decided on the fate of PATHANISTAN. But Nehru ditched Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan.

As Wali Khan, son of late Abdul Ghaffar Khan wrote:

” In the ends, thus, one keeps coming back to the same conclusion that the British were keen on putting an Islamic halter round the socialist order in the north and were not prepared to permit any hurdle, Khudai Khidmatgars’ or whatever, in their way. In fact they were convinced that unless they removed all the nationalist and anti imperialist forces from their path would not be able to consummate their design.”

Was JL Nehru acting as a British agent ?

Tsk...tsk Joey Bhai !

Arguably the fact that only 28% of the adult population of British India was allowed to vote (Guha, 2007) might suggest that the disenfranchisement of millions was an all India thing not just a NWFP thing !

Moreover one might even suggest that because only 48% of the eligible voters in Bombay turned out to vote (Vanderbok & Sisson, 1988) maybe counterfactuals could be phrased as thus 'Did majority of the British Indians in Bombay wanted to opt out of British India?' and 'What generalisable conclusions could be extrapolated to the rest of British India from this and instances like these happening all over British India?' !

Maybe we've both been duped into opting out of British India...maybe the silent majority in British India that was never allowed to vote were happy with the Gora Sahib ? Maybe with a few more rights here and there they'd been alright !

So far as the Tribal Areas are concerned; they were not a part of the NWFP so why would they be allowed to vote ? You had to understand the Settled vs Tribal divide that existed in the areas that were called NWFP and FATA. The settled areas represented by NWFP worked like a province but the Tribal areas were administered directly by a political agent on behalf of the British; so in a way they were arguably of a quasi-autonomous status akin to but different from the princely states. (Rasanayagam, 2003).

In all 5 of the Tribal Agencies the British asked Tribal Jirgas to vote on India or Pakistan and all 5 of them voted for Pakistan (Dupree, 1973).

Heck even the boycott by the Khan Brothers seemed to be only marginally successful because 55% of the eligible people voted in the 1947 Referendum as opposed to the 68% who voted in the 1946 Provincial Elections in NWFP (Dupress, 1973); not a world of difference if my mathematics is correct ! And even though Rittenberg (1988) quotes slightly different figures of 50.99% voting he points out that most of the Sikhs and Hindus had already left the province by the time the vote was held and did not get to exercise their right to vote so maybe thats where the decrease is coming from.

And besides lets not look too much into the Congress victory in the 1946 election as Cunningham in his Governor Report dated 24 Jan, 1946 observes that the election was not fought on the basis of party program but on the grounds of faction-feeling.

References:

Guha (2007); India After Gandhi: The history of the world's largest democracy by Ramachandra Guha.

Vanderbok & Sisson (1988); Parties and Electorates from Raj to Swaraj An historical analysis of electoral behavior in late colonial and early independent India by William Vanderbok and Richard Sisson, Social Science History
Vol. 12, No. 2 (Summer, 1988), pp. 121-142

Rasanayagam (2003); Afghanistan: A modern history by Angelo Rasanayagam

Dupree (1973); Afghanistan by Louis Dupree

Rittenberg (1988); Ethnicity, nationalism and the Pakhtuns: The independence movement in India's North Western Frontier Province by Stephen Alan Rittenberg

 

[Joe Shearer]

Seems you have quoted a rambling post from pakteahouse blog "history is not a farce". I would refer you to the excellent series on NWFP by Yasir Latif Hamdani on the same pakteahouse site for a better understanding of the politics being raked up regarding the referendum.

LOL.

I never thought that the day would come when someone, anyone, would cite PTH to me. However, I am glad that this happened, as PTH seems to be shaking itself loose of some of the sickening elements and returning to sanity slowly, very slowly. Presumably, you follow it; you are to be congratulated. Raza Sahib and RHR did a wonderful job and continue to handle it very well.

It is nice to see YLH being quoted on PakDef again; I thought I was to be the only person doing so. While I personally like and respect him, his point of view is entirely oriented to a post-facto justification of whatever Jinnah did or was even indirectly responsible for. He is partially right, no doubt about that. Long before Jaswant Singh's book appeared, there was the equivalent of a high-level seminar on PakTeaHouse, where the participants included, besides YLH writing at the peak of his form, Bloody Civilian, Hayyer, Gorki, DaaN, and Vajra/ bonobashi (perhaps Majumdar, the founder president of the YLH fan club, was also a participant), where the facts behind various historical conundrums came out. Jinnah came out vindicated in much of what he had said and done; Nehru came out quite poorly from our discussions. Although I have since swung back a little (specifically, with regard to the Ayesha Jalal thesis), I hold by our broad conclusions from that debate.

One of those is a matter on which YLH has been spending a lot of time lately, and that is the politics of the NWFP. His view is brilliantly argued, as befits one of Pakistan's brightest legal luminaries, but is always through the lens of justifying some very strange happenings in the history of the independence movement after 1935.

I would like to take this up this evening, as I have to return to attending on a patient. It is good that someone in here has been reading PTH; several of us quit at the same time as it was getting overwhelmed by Hindutvavadi trolls, and as Raza Rumi and Septic Tank refused to listen to our cautions and allowed free speech of almost a doctrinaire kind to prevail.

A - Voting was restricted - It was decided by all parties that the 1946 voter list was to be used, the same list congress/kk claimed victory on in 1946.
B - Not all pashtuns were allowed... - I don't even know what that is supposed to mean, but if the sited author thinks that pashtuns in afghanistan should have a right to vote on a matter NOT IN afghanistan but in british india then i can't help him. Again the British, in consultation with congress and ml, decided the parameters of referendum - the same parameters that congress/kk was perfectly fine with just an year earlier. It was decided for all of british india not in princely states that there was to be no third option i.e. independence.
C/D - Tribal pashtuns were not allowed to vote - Tribal pashtuns were not part of NWFP but of FATA. Besides they held tribal jirgas to join Pakistan. The same tribal pashtuns who lambasted ghafar khan for bringing nehru (in addition to stoning him) to their homelands.
E - Chitral, Swat, Dir, Amb etc - were all princely states and not part of NWFP. As you well know princely states decided on their own. No issues here unlike JK, Hyderabad, & Junagadh because the rulers and subjects were the same and of the same mind. Why would you using their supposed disenfranchisement as a vote against Pakistan?

You may not be familiar with the political history of KK/ANP but the fact of the matter is that its support has been and remains limited to the charsadda/peshawar valley region. Chitral - not even pashtun -, Swat, Dir, Amb, Kohistan - not even pashtun -, Hazara division - not even pashtun -, and FATA were never strong proponents of kk and its pet project of pashtunistan.

Third option for independence was rejected by Nehru because it would affect other areas of British India. The much-hyped boycott would have made no difference as only 15% of eligible voters - even less if we go by your math - failed to show up to the referendum. I'll be generous and give that 15% as part of the49% of eligible votes NOT CAST to KK, and that still would've have made a difference in the outcome of a resounding MAJORITY win by ML. KK boycotted like a petulant child but even it could see that it had no support for its position.

Votes in any elections are not counted by which percentage of the TOTAL population (children under voting age, too old, tribal customs, people simply not interested, people already knowing the likely outcome etc) votes. That's like saying only 61 million out of 341 million (17%) voted for obama in the last elections and thus the results are rigged and a farce. Votes are counted by votes casted, thus Pakistan got over 99% of NWFP votes.

My point remains, that your numerical jugglery in no way justifies you characterizing the 49% as against Pakistan and/or for India/Afghanistan/Pashtunistan. Those 49% included the boycott of kk. Turnout was about 15% less. You seem to be in a hurry to bracket all non-votees as the boycotted votes. One can surmise that this 15% is the boycotted votes and in no way sullies the MAJORITY votes attained by the ML. The same voting list (apparently disenfranchised) and a slightly higher turnout of 15% in the previous elections was enough for congress/kk to claim NWFP but not enough for ML to claim a decisive victory of over 99%?

Tsk...tsk Joey Bhai !

Arguably the fact that only 28% of the adult population of British India was allowed to vote (Guha, 2007) might suggest that the disenfranchisement of millions was an all India thing not just a NWFP thing !

Moreover one might even suggest that because only 48% of the eligible voters in Bombay turned out to vote (Vanderbok & Sisson, 1988) maybe counterfactuals could be phrased as thus 'Did majority of the British Indians in Bombay wanted to opt out of British India?' and 'What generalisable conclusions could be extrapolated to the rest of British India from this and instances like these happening all over British India?' !

Maybe we've both been duped into opting out of British India...maybe the silent majority in British India that was never allowed to vote were happy with the Gora Sahib ? Maybe with a few more rights here and there they'd been alright !

So far as the Tribal Areas are concerned; they were not a part of the NWFP so why would they be allowed to vote ? You had to understand the Settled vs Tribal divide that existed in the areas that were called NWFP and FATA. The settled areas represented by NWFP worked like a province but the Tribal areas were administered directly by a political agent on behalf of the British; so in a way they were arguably of a quasi-autonomous status akin to but different from the princely states. (Rasanayagam, 2003).

In all 5 of the Tribal Agencies the British asked Tribal Jirgas to vote on India or Pakistan and all 5 of them voted for Pakistan (Dupree, 1973).

Heck even the boycott by the Khan Brothers seemed to be only marginally successful because 55% of the eligible people voted in the 1947 Referendum as opposed to the 68% who voted in the 1946 Provincial Elections in NWFP (Dupress, 1973); not a world of difference if my mathematics is correct ! And even though Rittenberg (1988) quotes slightly different figures of 50.99% voting he points out that most of the Sikhs and Hindus had already left the province by the time the vote was held and did not get to exercise their right to vote so maybe thats where the decrease is coming from.

And besides lets not look too much into the Congress victory in the 1946 election as Cunningham in his Governor Report dated 24 Jan, 1946 observes that the election was not fought on the basis of party program but on the grounds of faction-feeling.

References:

Guha (2007); India After Gandhi: The history of the world's largest democracy by Ramachandra Guha.

Vanderbok & Sisson (1988); Parties and Electorates from Raj to Swaraj An historical analysis of electoral behavior in late colonial and early independent India by William Vanderbok and Richard Sisson, Social Science History
Vol. 12, No. 2 (Summer, 1988), pp. 121-142

Rasanayagam (2003); Afghanistan: A modern history by Angelo Rasanayagam

Dupree (1973); Afghanistan by Louis Dupree

Rittenberg (1988); Ethnicity, nationalism and the Pakhtuns: The independence movement in India's North Western Frontier Province by Stephen Alan Rittenberg

Why, @Armstrong , you've been READING! This is most unexpected; what happened to Peter Pan?

Let me get back to you this evening, and until then, ruminate on the fact that Indian General Elections were held on a completely different franchise from the ones allowed by the 1935 Act.

 

[Armstrong]

Why, @Armstrong , you've been READING! This is most unexpected; what happened to Peter Pan?

Let me get back to you this evening, and until then, ruminate on the fact that Indian General Elections were held on a completely different franchise from the ones allowed by the 1935 Act.

Me and reading !

Momentary lapse...momentary lapse !

But what are you saying ? The 1937 and 1946 elections were held under the enlarged franchise envisioned by the 1935 Act and the regime elected continued on till universal franchise was granted in the 1952 election held in India (Vanderbok and Sisson, 1988) !

 

[Joe Shearer]

Me and reading !

Momentary lapse...momentary lapse !

But what are you saying ? The 1937 and 1946 elections were held under the enlarged franchise envisioned by the 1935 Act and the regime elected continued on till universal franchise was granted in the 1952 election held in India (Vanderbok and Sisson, 1988) !

?
That's exactly what I said!

The First General Election in India, btw, WAS the one in 1952.

 

[Armstrong]

?
That's exactly what I said!

The First General Election in India, btw, WAS the one in 1952.

So whats your point ? The fact that it was still only 28% of the total population ought to raise some alarm bells and even if they don't we can't really escape the fact that it was an all-India thing not specific to the NWFP !

Now I am going back to my Vanilla Coke....you go back to your Gin & Tonic...no wait you seem more of a Cognac kinda guy !

 

[TMA]

It is not KPK that we need to worry about, anyone who has spent any time in the province will know it will not happen in a thousand years.

It's Baluchistan which has become a ticking bomb.

For a long time, a very long time, our establishment was ok with Afghani assimilation into province of Baluchistan which I believe and I might be wrong was for a twisted demographic engineering reason.

The overall population of Pakistan increased by 46 percent between 1998-2011, but the population of Baluchistan increased by 139 percent. And consider the fact that the province has the highest infant mortality rate and worst medical facilities in the country, but still it is clocking much higher population growth. Why? Afghan refugees becoming Pakistani citizens that's why.

Please don't believe in those figures of 1.4 million legal and 1 million illegal refugees, the Baluchistan province alone has 4 million Afghan refugees and our law enforcement institutions knows that. Not all of them are Pashtuns of course, but majority of them are.
http://www.dawn.com/news/708123/the-tricky-demographics-of-balochistan

So the net result is that the Baluch percentage of population in the province has been steadily decreasing for the last two decades and all the while Pashtun population has been increasing. If you have any source in the province then you will know that Quetta where the Baloch-Pashtun population was somewhat equal but has now become a Pashtun majority city. Look at the results from the last polls, PKMAP won a clear majority in the city.

As for why it was allowed and perhaps facilitated, well here is my very own conspiracy theory. Baloch do have grievances and some of them actually want to secede, and there is an insurgent movement for that cause. Pashtuns on the other hand, while do have grievances are not talking about seceding and their is no insurgent movement for that cause. So having a very large pasthun population naturally negates the idea of an independent Baluchistan, or so goes the logic behind this.

In the last census done in 1998, Baloch were 40% of the province population, Barahui were 20%, while Pashtun were 25%, while the rest was made up of Hazaras and Punjabi, Urdu-speaking and Sindhi settlers. Barahui consider themselves part of the Baloch culture, so that is 60% Baloch and 25% Pashtuns.

That was 98, oh boy just wait for the next census and we all will be in for a big surprise. Keep in mind we are talking about a province of 13 Million, add 4 million refugees most of whom might have the Pakistani nationality by now and we will see the balance tilting in favor of Pashtuns.

So yeah on the surface of it, when the next census results come out it will take a lot of air out of the Baloch separatists demands as they will be demanding for seceding a province where their ethnic don't have a clear majority. But here is where lies the real problem.

With the statement made by this Achakzai guy you can clearly see how loyal he is to the state of Pakistan. Same is the the case with most of his party members, I can share a few videos of them chanting anti-Pakistan slogans but that will be in bad taste, search Youtube yourself and you'll find many.

They don't talk about secession but they are not in love with the state either. We are also sure how much love those 4 million Afghan refugees have for Pakistan as well, and they will definitely be voting for PKMAP who allegedly supported them in getting Pakistani CNICs in the first place.

So when the next census comes Baluchs might lose their majority in the province and the election commission will have to divide the constituencies accordingly. Which means this man might become the next chief minister of the province and will have 4 million Afghans who have no love for Pakistan and the political leaders of their homeland pushing him to "stand up" to "Punjabi Establishment". He already demands for a separate province for Pashtuns, only GOD knows what he will do when he get a clear majority.

And if I am a Baloch that will really piss me off and even if I was not part of any movement till now, I will start considering it in future.

So we are heading towards a disaster in Baluchistan if action is not taken against the Afghans who have illegally got Pakistani CNICs. This needs to be done now and perhaps it is already on the table and thats why this goon is barking about protecting Afghan rights and stuff.

This is not the first time we have unleashed the dragons that will come back to haunt us. Oh the games we play.

Sometimes I think the policy makers are just stupid. If one wishes to dilute insurgency tendencies, why not move people from Sindh or Punjab as opposed to foreigners who despise Pakistan in their hearts?

 

[Moon]

You have to calculate the number who took part and the number who were debarred. Look at the opinion below, and observe how he has done the math (not an Indian author, btw).


Meghnad Desai, "The Rediscovery of India", for starters.

@Mentee Please note.

Another comment which is an opinion merely but illustrates what a farce took place:

Muhammed Iqbal Chawla writes:----

"As the last Viceroy of India, Mountbatten presided over the transfer of power which involved both independence and the division of the subcontinent in 1947. While dividing India it was decided that the wish of the people through the democratic process is sought, for or against, inclusion within Pakistan. In the two major Muslim majority provinces of Bengal and Punjab this was determined by the vote of their representatives in the legislature. In the provinces of the NWFP, Baluchistan and Assam however this was determined by a referendum. The Congress had opted to abstain from the referendum in the NWFP, and its outcome was a heavy mandate for Pakistan but even after that the ruling Congress Ministry refused to resign. Mountbatten refrained from using his discretionary powers to dismiss Dr Khan Sahib’s ministry, consequently, the Government of Pakistan, after it came into being, dismissed it, for it believed that the Congress party had lost every legal or moral foundation to be in power as the people had given a clear verdict in favour of Pakistan and against the Congress government in the Referendum.------------------The author takes the position that Mountbatten, despite the controversy with which he is regarded in Pakistan, played an instrumental role in the accession of NWFP to Pakistan. This was by no means a forgone conclusion in the wake of the Muslim League’s poor showing in the 1946 Frontier Provincial elections.His decision that a referendum should be held enabled the Muslim League to galvanize popular sentiment for inclusion in Pakistan, despite the presence of a Congress ministry----"

Congress abstaining, along with Khudai Khidmatgar, a farce and a shameful farce , this referendum was. And the key reasons were:

A: It was not based on adult franchise, Voting was restricted
B. Not all Pakhtoons were allowed to participate in the referendum that would seal not only their fate but that of their brothers in Afghanistan
C. The tribal Pakhtoons were not allowed to vote. In the population of 3.5 Million only 0.6 Million were allowed to vote
D. 6 Tribal agencies were barred from it
E. The States of Sawat, Dir,Amb, and Chitral were also not allowed to participate

Any referendum that disenfranchises such a large number of population can never be called a legitimate exercise of “self determination”. It has no political, legal and moral authority whatsoever.

As Khudai khidmatgar of Abdul Ghaffar Khan boycotted the Plebiscite, the lone contender in the fray, the Muslim League, won the vote by default, as only 0.6 Millions (17%) out of 3.5 millions of the population were allowed to vote in the Plebiscite and only 51% (2,92 lakhs) of this voted. Muslim League got only 51% votes. The remaining votes of 49% were double stamped. Remember, 83% or nearly 29 lakhs did not participate and Muslim league had got only 51% of 17%, who were asked to vote.

The Results:

Population : 35 Lakhs
Number of people allowed : 5,72,799
Polled votes (51%): 2,92,118
For Pakistan (51.5%) 2,89,244
For India 2,874

51.5% of the allowed Voters , Voted for Pakistan.Is this the result of a referendum that sealed the fate of Millions of Pakhtoons? With the disenfranchisment of 29 lakhs, it can’t even be called a majority vote.

No one understands Nehru's motive, other than influence of Louis Mountbatten and his wife. Ever since PAKHTOONS have been a thorn in the flesh of Pakistan. Pakistan never had its writ run over seven tribal areas of FATA.

Had third option been allowed to Khudai Khidmatgars of an independent state , they would have participated in the Plebiscite. Then, they would have got 90% votes due to Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan and then NORTH WEST FRONTIER PROVINCE would have been Independent state. In any case, once the elected assembly had the majority, the need for refrendum was not understood. Like Bengal and Punjab, NWFP assembly should have decided on the fate of PATHANISTAN. But Nehru ditched Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan.

As Wali Khan, son of late Abdul Ghaffar Khan wrote:

” In the ends, thus, one keeps coming back to the same conclusion that the British were keen on putting an Islamic halter round the socialist order in the north and were not prepared to permit any hurdle, Khudai Khidmatgars’ or whatever, in their way. In fact they were convinced that unless they removed all the nationalist and anti imperialist forces from their path would not be able to consummate their design.”

Was JL Nehru acting as a British agent ?

1) So your basis of the statement is that because not all people got to vote means that the people of Chitral, Sawat etc, would join Afghanistan?
2) Historically, the British would always keep a small portion of people to vote in an election. Refer to 1937 elections where a mere 14 percent of entire India voted. So basically the percentage factor can be ruled out, if not, on the same basis I can claim Indian territory where people might have voted for Pakistan. Moving on.
3) And how do we know, that the double stamped votes, of which how many voted for Pakistan, as evidence from the references you've suggested states:

The Congress had opted to abstain from the referendum in the NWFP, and its outcome was a heavy mandate for Pakistan but even after that the ruling Congress Ministry refused to resign.

Source: https://defence.pk/threads/kp-belon...-mahmood-achakzai.437387/page-2#ixzz4DIeGp5Fo
I'd say it's safe to assume, Pakistan still bagged the majority of the votes.
4) Where did the 90 percent of people voting for Khan Abdul Ghuffar Khan, come from?. Was this just a mere statement, with no evidence? If so I've seen such statements to "sensualize" biased articles you know 2 truths and 10 lies type of things.

 

[Armstrong]

1) So your basis of the statement is that because not all people got to vote means that the people of Chitral, Sawat etc, would join Afghanistan?
2) Historically, the British would always keep a small portion of people to vote in an election. Refer to 1937 elections where a mere 14 percent of entire India voted. So basically the percentage factor can be ruled out, if not, on the same basis I can claim Indian territory where people might have voted for Pakistan. Moving on.
3) And how do we know, that the double stamped votes, of which how many voted for Pakistan, as evidence from the references you've suggested states:

The Congress had opted to abstain from the referendum in the NWFP, and its outcome was a heavy mandate for Pakistan but even after that the ruling Congress Ministry refused to resign.

Source: https://defence.pk/threads/kp-belon...-mahmood-achakzai.437387/page-2#ixzz4DIeGp5Fo
I'd say it's safe to assume, Pakistan still bagged the majority of the votes.
4) Where did the 90 percent of people voting for Khan Abdul Ghuffar Khan, come from?. Was this just a mere statement, with no evidence? If so I've seen such statements to "sensualize" biased articles you know 2 truths and 10 lies type of things.

You know Meap...the people from Hazara overwhelmingly voted for the Muslim League even in the 1946 Provincial Election !

Damn...you just might be as patriotic a Pakistani as I am !

Nah...fat chance of that happening; heck even when I bleed my blood is green and white !

But that could also be because I'm a distant cousin of the Hulk !

 

[Sharpshooter12]

The Results:

Population : 35 Lakhs
Number of people allowed : 5,72,799
Polled votes (51%): 2,92,118
For Pakistan (51.5%) 2,89,244
For India 2,874

51.5% of the allowed Voters , Voted for Pakistan.Is this the result of a referendum that sealed the fate of Millions of Pakhtoons? With the disenfranchisment of 29 lakhs, it can’t even be called a majority vote.

This is what happens Sir when you know nothing about a region and still want to add your input to a topic related to it, google helps but it can't win you a losing debate.

The total population of British India in 1945 was a little less than 30 Crore but in the elections of 1946 the total electorate was a bit more than 4 Crore. Now you do the math and see if the electorate has the same average against total population as it was in KPK. And remember those elections decided the fate of Punjab, Sindh, Bengal, which were much larger provinces.

Another fun fact, even in the general election of 1946 where Congress got 30 seats and Muslim League got 17,
League received 146,235 votes in the Muslim constituencies while Congress scored 142,508 votes.

And that election was not fought on any specific agenda as there was never a chance of NWFP joining India. So one British official notes "the results in the voting for the Muslim seats seem likely to be decided by the number of sheep each candidate can kill to feast his supporters”, the general estimate being ten votes per sheep. And by God people in that province have progressed in the last 70 years, while the rest of our country is still stuck with pretty much the same psyche.

So you can see Sir the number of voters allowed to vote were at par with the rest of the country.

And as for the Khudai Khidmatgar boycott, again do the math. With 99.5 percent of the 51% turnout voting in favor of Pakistan, even if 100% of the remaining 49% voted against it, the result would have been the same.

 

[AbdulRehman Qureshi]

Every Pakistani Pashtun is incredibly patriotic

 

[Sharpshooter12]

Sometimes I think the policy makers are just stupid. If one wishes to dilute insurgency tendencies, why not move people from Sindh or Punjab as opposed to foreigners who despise Pakistan in their hearts?

No that actually happened and it was one of the grievances of the Naraz Balochs, especially Bugti. I am against this concept of demographic engineering.

The province's name is Baluchistan and the Baluchs should always be the majority there. Such moves will only fuel their resentment. More than half of them are already loyal of the state and rest of them can be brought into national fold with sincere efforts like the ones put in the recent few years. There is no need to change the demographic of a province.