Pakistan Tribes Turn Against Army

[Safriz]

You know I started off my post for slamming Safriz but then I came across this kid's posts. I'm sorry but this is getting so hopelessly depressing that I can't even explain. I understand his anger. However, that anger did show his allegiances quite clearly. This is the core problem of Pakistan, not the WOT, not the politicians, not the load shedding, nothing but this. None of us is true to this country. There was a time when I hoped for a better future for this country through a more educated collective conscience based on collective self interest, for God knows that we will never be true to this country for the love of it. I thought that facing hardship after hardship we would realize our follies and turn for the better. I don't see it happening anymore. I want to meet those people who raise their children first as Pukhtoons, Punjabis, Sindhis, Baloch, etc and then as Pakistanis, if at all. I want to see how despicable and dead a human can be. These thankless imbeciles whine for never having ever gotten anything from this country when they themselves have never given anything to it and/or are the ones who have actually destroyed it. Our mentalities are so insanely obtuse that its hard to differentiate us from mentally handicapped sheep. For God's sake, animals exhibit more sense. We are the sorriest lot on the planet and we still take pride in what got us here. And no one is even willing to listen. This hoard of people does not deserve this country and this country never deserved this hoard of people.

So the penny dropped?

Hence my frustration....

 

[KS]

.... I want to meet those people who raise their children first as Pukhtoons, Punjabis, Sindhis, Baloch, etc and then as Pakistanis, if at all. I want to see how despicable and dead a human can be. .

What is wrong in that ?

I was raised a Tamil, a Hindu, a Koundar (clan) and as an Indian. They are all my identities. You should just know to balance them properly. This might be true for almost all Indians who have multiple linguistic,ethnic,regional and national identities. But that has not come in the way of our national integration.

 

[bronxbull]

But you do wish Pakistan did not exist which scenarios you used to discuss there, insult other ethnic groups, Jinnah and a lot of things I saw on the site that you did would make a person gasp in shock. You shouldn't say those things. I hope at least a small change if not a major one came over you. You said things like Jinnah ko goli maar. This is how a person talks about baba-e-qowm. No one will respect you for this behavior Luffy. Maybe you were better than others on the site but you are still a problematic person which everyone here notices. Every Pashtun has delinked himself from you.

does that include,u also?

 

[Armstrong]

That is a matter of interpretation. The general consensus is - Therefore, following the theory of state succession, Pakistan would be regarded as having broken off and become a new state and, as a new non-member state, must seek admission to the United nations pursuant to the provisions of Article 4 of the Charter. But Pakistan does have the right to interpret it as broken off from British India and not from its sucessor state, the Republic of India.

No it isn't a matter of interpretation; Pakistan was partitioned from British India not it successor state. India's inclusion in the United Nations as the successor state to British India has no bearing whatsoever on the Partitioning of Pakistan from British India; on the contrary the fact that a 'successor state' is being mentioned to begin with is indicative of the fact that British India & the Dominion of India are two separate entities & not the continuation of the former in its unaltered form.

I'm not able to get what you are trying to say ? Abit more clear please. I'll just say the agreement existed between the States of Afghanistan and British India that KPK would be leased to them for 99 years and after that it would be returned to Afghanistan. Actually the case for Afghan claim on KPK is stronger in that sense, that Kashmir's accession to India is legally valid according to Partition plan when the Maharaja acceded to India.

Some proof for that 99 year clause in the original treaty or any of its reaffirmations would be much appreciated !

Because the original treaty or its subsequent reaffirmations don't, to the best of my knowledge, talk of any return of KPK or the Tribal Areas to Afghanistan at any given point in time, mentions it to be a lease or talks about an expiry date for the arrangement, I can't imagine how it could be taken in the same breadth as the Partition Plan of June 3rd which was a document talking about the Partitioning of British India to begin with.

As far as Kashmir is concerned & its validity; we dispute that, we dispute the validity of the secession document & we mention Junagardh & Hyderabad as converse examples ! But let us not get into all of that for that will take the discussion into an altogether different direction with the usual arguments & counter-arguments, by both sides, on Kashmir & the real topic under discussion, as I understand, would be lost.

 

[Areesh]

Some proof for that 99 year clause in the original treaty or any of its reaffirmations would be much appreciated !

Keep waiting. I have been asking him to provide any proof for this and he keeps on repeating stupid tantrums. This is the third different where I have asked him to prove this rubbish and result like always is the same. Nothing. Huh.

 

[haviZsultan]

Torghar District - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

They have been recently integrated.
Why cant FATA?
Its upon them if they want to integeate or not?

They want to but the central government are the ones that are stopping them for purposes of strategic depth or want to continue to use FATA as a buffer for some reason like idiots. Here is proof. Red part is for you too.

Insight into the Fata mind

RECENTLY, the Community Appraisal and Motivation Programme (CAMP) issued its annual survey of the perceptions held by the tribesmen of Fata.

Understanding FATA — Volume 5 provides a comprehensive insight into the minds of Fata’s population. The credit for creating awareness in this regard about Fata goes to the UK’s Department for International Development (DFID) for funding the initiative and to CAMP for ably executing the task under dangerous conditions.

In this three-part series, I will discuss some of the results relating to conflict, constitutional change, views about politicians and the priorities of the people of Fata.

Surveys of this sort are the staple of policymakers, especially when they are uncertain about what reforms to initiate for improving the people’s lives. The survey is also important in another sense: Pakistan is geopolitically divided into a core and a periphery and the lack of awareness of what is happening in the periphery can lead to the destabilisation of the country.

We saw this happen in East Pakistan in 1971. The findings provide a bird’s eye view of current perceptions in one peripheral area that ought to be heeded for strengthening national solidarity.

It may be noted that Pakistan’s core is based on territories within the Punjab and Sindh provinces. They contain Pakistan’s demographic, industrial, commercial and agricultural heartland. From Punjab in the north, this region extends southward through Sindh province, flowing along the Indus River valley into the Thar desert.

“This means Pakistan’s core is hard by the Indian border, leaving no meaningful terrain barriers to invasion. (Indeed, the Punjabi population straddles the Indian-Pakistani border much as the Pakhtun population straddles the Pakistani-Afghan border). This narrow strip of flat land is inherently vulnerable to India, Pakistan’s arch-rival to the east, a geographic arrangement that was no accident of the British partition,” notes the report.

Thus, suffering from both geographic and demographic disadvantages, i.e. India — and with no strategic depth to speak of — Pakistan is extremely anxious about its security in the east and is forced to look to the Afghan border both out of concern for its depth and in search of opportunity. Fata, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Balochistan form the periphery around the Pakistani heartland and while the core is ever conscious of what happens within that periphery, it has not dealt with it with wisdom so far.

If geography determines strategic choices, then we should listen to it. Instead, we have considered trumping geopolitical limitations by forming alliances to upgrade our military to prepare for wars.

The situation of a country such as ours, that had a much larger India shadowing us in West Pakistan on the eastern flank and an East Pakistan that was surrounded on all sides by it, should have impelled us to reach a détente with our bigger neighbour. We, of course, thought otherwise and paid the price by losing the eastern half.

In many ways the current situation shows that we have become almost blind or indifferent to the challenges facing us in Fata, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Balochistan.

The survey on Fata could thus not have come at a better time to give our policymakers abundant food for thought. It is
remarkable that a region and people who have borne the brunt of violence and death for the last 12 years should collectively speak with the wisdom and maturity that they exhibit in this report.

Regarding the constitutional future of Fata, 22 per cent of the 4,000 respondents wanted integration with Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, the main reason being that both regions contained Pakhtun-majority populations. Eleven per cent of the respondents wanted the existing status quo to be maintained, and 15 per cent of these explained that the conduct of governance in the provinces was not of a quality that would lead to betterment.

Meanwhile, 28 per cent of the respondents thought that a separate province for Fata was the only path towards joining the mainstream. They felt that a merger with Khyber Pakhtunkhwa would lead to them being swamped by its elite. Many thought that by joining Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Fata’s mineral resources would be captured.

Clearly, then, the future of Fata lies in either of two choices: joining Khyber Pakhtunkhwa or becoming a separate province.

Perhaps one way out of this dilemma would be to empower political parties to mobilise in Fata as a precursor to a referendum.The survey quotes 71 per cent of the respondents as feeling that the country was not moving in a promising direction. Amongst national politicians, only Imran Khan emerged with high marks. This had nothing to do with performance but with hope and the Fata youth bulge.

Khan was thought by 18 per cent of the respondents as being the best available leader, followed by Nawaz Sharif who received 15 per cent of the respondents’ confidence. All other leaders scored below four per cent.

The survey gave a priority list of the tribesmen: 45 per cent voted for security, the same percentage thought that the provision of electricity was equally important, education scored 44 per cent, next came employment at 41 per cent, followed closely by health at 40 per cent. This constitutes a wise wish list indeed.

In a similar vein, 79 per cent of the tribesmen opposed the presence of the US military in Fata and 68 per cent were against the presence of Al Qaeda, while the Afghan Taliban and the TTP were equally unpopular with 64 per cent and 63 per cent of the total respondents surveyed.

The message clearly was that foreign groups or practices had no place in Fata. To get rid of these elements, 67 per cent recommended that it should be the Pakistan military’s job.

The residents of Fata have retained their rationality despite the fact that 19 per cent, or 720,000 of them, have been internally displaced by war at one time or another. Despite this, they are hopeful about the emergence of a national saviour.

The writer is chairman of the Regional Institute of Policy Research in Peshawar.

Only a callous person can state that after these sacrifices, being displaced and being anti-Al Qaeda tribesmen are against Pakistan-they are for the unity, government is giving the message it doesn't want them. You should reassess your views Safriz. Don't hate your own countrymen, you could have been in their shoes.

It would be interesting what people from tribal areas have to say about this. Particularly my dear friend @ghilzai and @Hyperion.

 

[Marwat Khan Lodhi]

Y I want to meet those people who raise their children first as Pukhtoons, Punjabis, Sindhis, Baloch, etc and then as Pakistanis, if at all. I want to see how despicable and dead a human can be. These thankless imbeciles whine for never having ever gotten anything from this country when they themselves have never given anything to it and/or are the ones who have actually destroyed it. Our mentalities are so insanely obtuse that its hard to differentiate us from mentally handicapped sheep. For God's sake, animals exhibit more sense. .

In our Pashtun society Parents neither specifically raise their children as pashtuns nor as pakistani. They do not teach us codes of Pakhtunwali neither they teach us 14 points of Jinnah, they teach us morals and good behavior, they tell us right and wrong and teach us basics of Islam. We learn pashto by mimicking adults in our family and society. As we grow up we develop cultural identity through a natural process.
At the age of 5 i started going to madrassa for Quran, at the age of six i was admitted in school and after age of seven my family made it sure that i go to mosque for each and every nimaz. My grandmother surely didnt tell us stories of jinnah and muslim league but she used to tell us beautiful pashto folk stories for children before sleep.I didnt play national game of Pakistan i.e hockey instead i played locally popular sports like football and volleyball with boys in my village. I danced with attan in weddings and celebrations instead of bhangrra.
A child should develop positive feelings about his ethnic and cultural identity otherwise you are messing with his mental health.

 

[INDIC]

What is wrong in that ?

I was raised a Tamil, a Hindu, a Koundar (clan) and as an Indian. They are all my identities. You should just know to balance them properly. This might be true for almost all Indians who have multiple linguistic,ethnic,regional and national identities. But that has not come in the way of our national integration.

Why people in Pakistan so fearful about regional ethnic identity, they meant to protest everything that is non-Urdu

 

[Marwat Khan Lodhi]

Why people in Pakistan so fearful about regional ethnic identity, they meant to protest everything that is non-Urdu

There was a programme on Geo channel in which a female host was interviewing shahid afridi and his family members, she asked him what langauge your kids speak at home. Afridi said Pashto. The stupid host said why not urdu? It is our national langauge. Our afridi replied that her daughters learn urdu at schools, then he went on explaining importance of mother tongue for childern.
Many pakistanis are also critical of the fact that a national level player like shahid afridi keep his wife under strict purdah , they want to see pictures of her wife.
There are countless other examples.

 

[Porus]

In our Pashtun society Parents neither specifically raise their children as pashtuns nor as pakistani. They do not teach us codes of Pakhtunwali neither they teach us 14 points of Jinnah, they teach us morals and good behavior, they tell us right and wrong and teach us basics of Islam. We learn pashto by mimicking adults in our family and society. As we grow up we develop cultural identity through a natural process.
At the age of 5 i started going to madrassa for Quran, at the age of six i was admitted in school and after age of seven my family made it sure that i go to mosque for each and every nimaz. My grandmother surely didnt tell us stories of jinnah and muslim league but she used to tell us beautiful pashto folk stories for children before sleep.I didnt play national game of Pakistan i.e hockey instead i played locally popular sports like football and volleyball with boys in my village. I danced with attan in weddings and celebrations instead of bhangrra.
A child should develop positive feelings about his ethnic and cultural identity otherwise you are messing with his mental health.

Those inane comments didn't deserve any reply but you handled it quite smartly.

 

[KS]

No it isn't a matter of interpretation; Pakistan was partitioned from British India not it successor state. India's inclusion in the United Nations as the successor state to British India has no bearing whatsoever on the Partitioning of Pakistan from British India; on the contrary the fact that a 'successor state' is being mentioned to begin with is indicative of the fact that British India & the Dominion of India are two separate entities & not the continuation of the former in its unaltered form.

As I said interpretation varies according to who is saying. SO fair enough.

Bolded part is false. You need to read the link I gave again. It clearly states just because the borders of a state varies (secession of Pakistan) , it in no away affects the legal continuity of the (parent) state.

Some proof for that 99 year clause in the original treaty or any of its reaffirmations would be much appreciated !

Because the original treaty or its subsequent reaffirmations don't, to the best of my knowledge, talk of any return of KPK or the Tribal Areas to Afghanistan at any given point in time, mentions it to be a lease or talks about an expiry date for the arrangement, I can't imagine how it could be taken in the same breadth as the Partition Plan of June 3rd which was a document talking about the Partitioning of British India to begin with.

Are baba, the agreement was between the British India and Amir of Afghanistan and once Pakistan seceded as it was necessary to re-enter into all organizations again, it needed to re-negotiate the Durand lie issue with Afghanistan again. That is the contention of Afghanistan and it seems a fair demand.

As far as Kashmir is concerned & its validity; we dispute that, we dispute the validity of the secession document & we mention Junagardh & Hyderabad as converse examples ! But let us not get into all of that for that will take the discussion into an altogether different direction with the usual arguments & counter-arguments, by both sides, on Kashmir & the real topic under discussion, as I understand, would be lost.

Lets not forget two important things :-

Jinnah accepted the accession of Junagadh first inspite of it being Hindu majority. Thus he gave a legal precedent for India.

Jinnah himself rejected the plebiscite plan in Hyderabad when a plebiscite was announced for Hyderbad and Kashmir by Mountbatten. If Jinnah had not been greedy and accepted the plebiscite in Hyderabad, then India would have been forced to agree to a plebiscite in Kashmir. But once again, Jinnah came to save the day for India.

tl;dr - Pakistan's claim on Kashmir is as weak as wet paper.

p.s: I agree this is offtopic. So no more replies on this.

 

[INDIC]

As I said interpretation varies according to who is saying. SO fair enough.

Bolded part is false. You need to read the link I gave again. It clearly states just because the borders of a state varies (secession of Pakistan) , it in no away affects the legal continuity of the (parent) state.





Are baba, the agreement was between the British India and Amir of Afghanistan and once Pakistan seceded as it was necessary to re-enter into all organizations again, it needed to re-negotiate the Durand lie issue with Afghanistan again. That is the contention of Afghanistan and it seems a fair demand.



Lets not forget two important things :-

Jinnah accepted the accession of Junagadh first inspite of it being Hindu majority. Thus he gave a legal precedent for India.

Jinnah himself rejected the plebiscite plan in Hyderabad when a plebiscite was announced for Hyderbad and Kashmir by Mountbatten. If Jinnah had not been greey and accepted the plebiscite in Hyderabad, then India would have been forced to agree to a plebiscite in Kashmir. But once again, Jinnah came to save the day for India.

tl;dr - Pakistan's claim on Kashmir is as weak as wet paper.

Didn't know this part about Hyderabad that Jinnah rejected referendum in Hyderabad and Kashmir. But why he wanted Hyderabad and Jungarh without any border with Pakistan going against TNT.

 

[KS]

Didn't know this part about Hyderabad that Jinnah rejected referendum in Hyderabad and Kashmir. But why he wanted Hyderabad and Jungarh without any border with Pakistan going against TNT.

Mountbatten personally offered a plebiscite in Junagadh, Hyderabad and Kashmir (with the acquiescence of Nehru), on 1 Nov 1947 to solve the issues amicabbly but Jinnah expressly rejected it. He wanted all and finally ended up loosing all, well almost all.

 

[Armstrong]

As I said interpretation varies according to who is saying. SO fair enough.

Bolded part is false. You need to read the link I gave again. It clearly states just because the borders of a state varies (secession of Pakistan) , it in no away affects the legal continuity of the (parent) state.

Are baba, the agreement was between the British India and Amir of Afghanistan and once Pakistan seceded as it was necessary to re-enter into all organizations again, it needed to re-negotiate the Durand lie issue with Afghanistan again. That is the contention of Afghanistan and it seems a fair demand.

Go through this, a good read : The Durand Line: Legal issues | The Nation

Lets not forget two important things :-

Jinnah accepted the accession of Junagadh first inspite of it being Hindu majority. Thus he gave a legal precedent for India.

Jinnah himself rejected the plebiscite plan in Hyderabad when a plebiscite was announced for Hyderbad and Kashmir by Mountbatten. If Jinnah had not been greedy and accepted the plebiscite in Hyderabad, then India would have been forced to agree to a plebiscite in Kashmir. But once again, Jinnah came to save the day for India.

tl;dr - Pakistan's claim on Kashmir is as weak as wet paper.

p.s: I agree this is offtopic. So no more replies on this.

What does this have to do with the Partition Plan of June 3rd accept give further credence to the argument that the dynamics were markedly different whereby an agreement, if any, was concluded to that effect whereas nothing of the sort was agreed in case of Afghanistan or Pakistan.

Furthermore I've never heard of Jinnah Sahib refusing plebiscite in case of Junagardh or Hyderabad but do quote some credible references that place such a proposition & its refusal in 'documentary' form.

And yes I'm still waiting for the 99 year lapse assertion that you put forth !

 

[INDIC]

Mountbatten personally offered a plebiscite in Junagadh, Hyderabad and Kashmir (with the acquiescence of Nehru), on 1 Nov 1947 to solve the issues amicabbly but Jinnah expressly rejected it. He wanted all and finally ended up loosing all, well almost all.

I found this video, grandson of Nawab of Junagarh still dream about Junagarh becoming Pakistan, rassi jal gayi par bal nahi gaya.

Furthermore I've never heard of Jinnah Sahib refusing plebiscite in case of Junagardh or Hyderabad but do quote some credible references that place such a proposition & its refusal in 'documentary' form.

And yes I'm still waiting for the 99 year lapse assertion that you put forth !

But Pakistan indeed wanted Hyderabad and Junagarh. Pakistan was even supplying weapons to Rezakars to suppress the pro-integration movement in Hyderabad.