I am not asking to recall the similarities and dissimilarities between the two cases. Unlike Akbar Bugti, Altaf Hussain never led an open rebellion against the state, didn't wage war against the security forces and go to the mountains for his rights. But that isn't the point, what's stopping the Baluchistan assembly from getting a resolution of condemnation against the psychopath Bugti approved? Why is a traitor supported to such lengths politically and publicly as to get trains and traffic? Last I remember, the same assembly was quick in approving a resolution against Altaf for mere statement. And why does it sound like you consider Bugti a hero? Brutally killed by the army, sure, a consequence of his reign of terror and blatant racism. Not some person fighting for his people's rights, just for extending his reign and acquiring a greater share of royalty. Why is there a large discrepancy in the treatment of both traitors?