US refuses to back Indian Modi’s claims on Azad Kashmir & Balochistan

[Asian.Century]

United States of America refuses to back Indian Prime Minister Modi’s claims

WASHINGTON: The United States continues to view the Kashmir issue as a dispute that needs to be settled by both India and Pakistan, says the US State Department, while distancing itself from India’s claims over Azad Kashmir and local Baloch issue.

In his Independence Day speech on Monday, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi refused to address the ongoing military oppression in India-held Kashmir.

Instead, he accused Islamabad of suppressing the people of Azad Kashmir and Balochistan, saying that “Pakistan shall have to answer to the world” for the alleged atrocities committed against the people in these regions.

At a Monday afternoon news briefing, an Indian journalist asked Elizabeth Trudeau, director of the US State Department Press Office, to address Mr Modi’s comments. The Indian journalist also claimed that the people of Azad Kashmir were “all Indians,” and said to the State Department official that the “time has come now to speak out” for those people as they were not allowed to express their views.

The journalist also reminded the State Department official that the Indian prime minister had directed his ministry of foreign affairs to raise this issue at the international level.

“I wouldn’t speak on Mr Modi’s comments. That would be for him to speak to,” said Ms Trudeau. “Our position, as you well know, on Kashmir has not changed. The pace, the scope, the character of any discussions on Kashmir is for the two sides to determine.”

The US official also urged Pakistan and India to work jointly to resolve this issue, which Pakistan warns has the potential to lead to yet another war between South Asia’s two nuclear-armed states. “We support any and all positive steps that India and Pakistan can take to forge closer relations,” she said.

Instead of addressing the alleged Pakistani atrocities in Azad Kashmir or even Balochistan, Ms Trudeau referred to clashes between civilian demonstrators and Indian forces in the Kashmir Valley and encouraged “all sides” to seek a peaceful solution.

“We’re aware of the clashes in Kashmir. We remain concerned about the violence, and we encourage all sides to make efforts to finding a peaceful resolution,” she said.

Noting that she was referring to clashes in India-held Kashmir, the journalist asked: “Is this the time now for the State Department to look into that part of Kashmir also?”

“I would leave our comments on Kashmir where I left them. We do remain concerned about the violence,” Ms Trudeau replied.

Published in Dawn, August 17th, 2016

Read Comments: http://www.dawn.com/news/1278096/us-refuses-to-back-modis-claims

---------------------------------------------------------------

US Government stays away from Modi’s position on Balochistan

WASHINGTON: In a carefully calibrated statement on Balochistan, the United States on Monday stayed away from an Indian effort to generate an international controversy over the restive province and instead urged all parties to resolve their differences peacefully.

In India’s Independence Day speech, Prime Minister Narendra Modi accused Pakistan of committing human rights violations in Balochistan, Gilgit-Baltistan and Azad Kashmir and claimed that people of those regions had thanked him for supporting them.

Pakistan reacted angrily to the speech, calling it a breach of international norms and intrusion in the country’s sovereignty.

“We have consistently urged all parties in Pakistan to work out their differences peaceably and through a valid political process,” a US State Department official told Dawn when asked to comment on the situation in Balochistan following Mr Modi’s comments.

In an earlier statement, also about Balochistan, the department’s deputy spokesman Mark Toner had assured Pakistan of its support to the country’s territorial integrity.

Another State Department official said there had been no change in the US policy on this issue.

Replying to a question, the official said: “We have seen reports of the clashes between protesters and Indian forces in Kashmir, and are concerned by the violence.”

As in his comments on the situation in Balochistan, the official encouraged “all sides to make efforts towards finding a peaceful resolution”.

Commenting on Mr Modi’s statement, Pakistani officials and media said he was trying to hide the atrocities committed by Indian security forces in held Kashmir by bracketing the situation in the valley with Balochistan, which, unlike Kashmir, was not a disputed territory.

But the Indian effort to internationalise the situation in Balochistan received support from the Bangladeshi government and former Afghan president Hamid Karzai.

During a visit to India, Bangladeshi Information Minister Hasanul Haque Inu said Bangladesh supported Mr Modi’s stand on Balochistan and would soon make a policy declaration on the issue. Mr Karzai said Mr Modi’s remarks should make the Pakistan government “see the gravity of the situation”.

Published in Dawn, August 23rd, 2016

Read comments: http://www.dawn.com/news/1278096/us-refuses-to-back-modis-claims


Master US of India refuses to acknowledge India's so called made up stories of Balochistan and Azad Kashmir of Pakistan. A brutal slap on India's face.

 

[SarthakGanguly]

More like - he neither backed nor denied Modi's claims. That should have been honest journalism. But then.... never mind.

 

[Path-Finder]

I swear there was a thread posted by indians, a hot out off the cows arse news item that showed some senators had backed Moohdhi ji's speech about Balochistan???

 

[Preacher]

More like - he neither backed nor denied Modi's claims. That should have been honest journalism. But then.... never mind.

WASHINGTON:" The United States continues to view the Kashmir issue as a dispute that needs to be settled by both India and Pakistan, says the US State Department,"
This title is enough to troll Mod'is claim because US still sees Kashmir as a disputed territory and is not backing Modi's false claim

 

[DrPuff]

US is just enjoying the show...
They don't give a c4ap about whether India or Pakistan or Baluchistan..

 

[Ghareeb_Da_Baal]

US is just enjoying the show...
They don't give a c4ap about whether India or Pakistan or Baluchistan..

Anyone one of us could ve told you that bro.

 

[Asian.Century]

Sarfaraz Bugti, Balochistan's interior minister, contradicts Modi's claims. "Kashmir and Balochistan are two different issues. If the people want, we can hold a referendum in the province. But we don't see any political struggle in Balochistan. The members of the nationalist parties are in the provincial assembly. They don't demand freedom. Balochistan has never been an international dispute. They merely ask for greater control over provincial resources. We can work with them on this issue," the official told DW.

 

[idune]

In fact US is upset with india for preempting their plan around Baluchistan. Now concerned states like Pakistan and Iran are extra alert on india operated terror plan.

 

[Ghareeb_Da_Baal]

hai, bizti nai ho gaye?

 

[Finer]

I told you. USA is feeling the pressure from Pakistan getting closer to China/Russia/Turkey. Pakistan is regional player, India is not. USA cannot afford to lose Pakistan. USA escape plan is riding on Pakistan as USA leaves Afghanistan.

 

[dadeechi]

US has always and will always back Pakistan over India. No surprises here.

Pakistan has been a close ally and strategic partner of US for 70 years now.

Indo-US relationship is transactional in nature.

 

[Mugwop]

sadists reaction to this thread

 

[chanakya84]

This is the basic difference between Indian and Pakistani mindset.

Indians do not need approvals from US or Russia or China to assert their statements where as Pakistan needs others to actually condemn or confirm their statement. Take it as Kashmir or statements related to Kashmir.

India functions unilaterly giving 0 standing to other nations to dictate terms.

Pakistan has more concerns about if middle supports them on Kashmir issue or US supports them. In case of India we do not care who supports or who doesnt. we have a stand and we stand by it and will play our offensive till the goals is achieved.

 

[Asian.Century]

This is the basic difference between Indian and Pakistani mindset.

Indians do not need approvals from US or Russia or China to assert their statements where as Pakistan needs others to actually condemn or confirm their statement. Take it as Kashmir or statements related to Kashmir.

India functions unilaterly giving 0 standing to other nations to dictate terms.

Pakistan has more concerns about if middle supports them on Kashmir issue or US supports them. In case of India we do not care who supports or who doesnt. we have a stand and we stand by it and will play our offensive till the goals is achieved.

You donot even know the basics of diplomacy and world politics. How its run.

Besides India always ran to its masters be it Soviet Russia, UK, America or UN.

It was India that ran to UN in 1947 begging for cease fire in Kashmir when it was being all nearly taken by Pakiatan Forces. It was India that agreed for UN backed Plebicite in Indian Occupied Kashmir.

Even now Modi is running and asking to its western masters to somehow bake false stories and internationalise Balochistan local issue of autonomy and resource distribution, when never in its entire history it was not considered an international dispute. You need to read the articles above carefully.

It is this Modi claims of Azad Kashmir & Balochistan US govt. gave a shutup call to India.

 

[dadeechi]

internationalise Balochistan local issue of autonomy and resource distribution, when never in its entire history it was not considered an international dispute.

The princely India
Yaqoob Khan Bangash May 10, 2015 Leave a comment


An understanding of how Pakistan was actually created and consolidated is essential if we are to comprehend and tackle the myriad of problems currently besetting Pakistan

Western Pakistan in August 15, 1947 (L) and West Pakistan on March 27, 1948.

If one picks up a general book on Pakistan it seems that the creation of Pakistan has only to do with the maneuverings of the All India Muslim League and its leader — the Quaid-e-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah. Most of the books only focus on happenings in British India and the struggle for independence in those regions with little reference to the ‘other India’ — Princely India, which in 1947 constituted nearly a third of the landmass of the Indian Empire and a fourth of its population.

Most texts which even mention the princely states mention them as if they existed in another world or parallel dimension and scarcely deal with them within the context of the unraveling of the British Indian Empire. This lack of focus on the princely states prevents a better understanding of not only the process of decolonisation but also the creation and consolidation of both India and Pakistan as post-colonial states. The continuing impact of these states on the state and polity of both India and Pakistan is also ignored in this manner.

Professor Barbara N Ramusack in her seminal volume in the New Cambridge history of India, The Princes of India and their States, noted how when the time came for the selection of a mascot for the new Air India the democratic Indian government chose none other than a ‘smiling Maharaja’ to represent India to the world. Today from the dazzling palaces turned hotels in Rajasthan to the spectacular success some former princes and scions achieve in parliamentary elections, the princes of India might not be ruling any longer, but are still visible political powers and powerful symbols of culture and religion. The former states, with their respective histories, cultural traditions, and ways of life are still affecting and will continue to affect life, politics, and development in India.

In the Pakistani context, while there might not be many grand palaces or very large states, the creation of what we now know as Pakistan has a lot to do with the princely states. As the map below shows western Pakistan was less than 50 per cent of what it is now, as the partition plan of June 3rd, 1947 only applied on British India.

The princely states — a good five hundred or so, became legally independent with the lapse of British paramountcy on August 15, 1947 and they could theoretically either join India or Pakistan or even remain independent. This meant that there could potentially be hundreds of independent principalities adjoining India and Pakistan. However, both the future government of India and Pakistan, and the governments in London and Washington wanted the princely states to accede to either India or Pakistan, in order to prevent the balkanisation of the subcontinent (discussed in an earlier article here).

It took eight long months for western Pakistan (at that time East Bengal was also part of Pakistan, in case readers forget!) to take shape. This was a result of months of arduous negotiations with different states and several promises being made to the acceded states and their rulers. While the accession of Bahawalpur and Khairpur was fairly easy, the accession of Junagadh — the first state to accede to Pakistan — led to a blockade by India and its eventual occupation by India. Concerning the four Frontier states of Chitral, Dir, Swat and Amb, the chances of any one of them — especially Dir — acceding to Afghanistan were rather high, while Kashmir claimed suzerainty over Chitral.

In these circumstances while all four states did accede to Pakistan, Governor General Jinnah did not accept their Instruments of Accession till months later, concerned about the effect on their accession on Pakistan’s relations with India and Afghanistan.

The accession of Kalat — which constituted most of the present province of Balochistan — was the most tricky. The Khan of Kalat, Mir Ahmed Yar Khan, who used to call Jinnah his ‘father’ was unwilling to accede to Pakistan. The House of Commons and the House of Lords of Kalat State were vociferously against accession to Pakistan, and wanted a treaty relationship — based on sovereign equality — between Kalat and Pakistan. It was only after a protracted period of negotiations and certain tactics used by the Pakistani bureaucracy, and strange help of All India Radio, that Kalat finally acceded to Pakistan on March 27, 1948. Thus, it was only with the accession of Kalat on March 27, 1948, that western Pakistan took its current shape on the map.

Pakistan’s first decade was the most critical phase in the development of the country. The ideas, decisions, problems and issues of that time are still important considerations in the country. An understanding of how Pakistan was actually created and consolidated is essential if we are to comprehend and tackle the myriad of problems — from the insurgency in Balochistan to the separate province movement in south Punjab — which currently beset Pakistan.

http://tns.thenews.com.pk/the-princely-india/#.V70NoM6cGW8


Jinnah recognised Balochistan’s independence
2 days ago

By Jamal Nasir Baloch

Jinnah as the founder of Pakistan, signed the standstill agreement with Balochistan’s sovereign Mir Ahmad Yar Khan.
On 14 July 1947, when the 38th Parliament of the United Kingdom was debating the Indian Independence Bill, only one man among 640 MPs could foresee the future. Sir Godfrey Nicholson, a conservative MP from Farnham, warned the House that “if Baluchistan does not wish to join Pakistan, nothing in the world can save it from being forced to join Pakistan if the Bill passes in its present form; and that is a serious matter”. He was raising his concern on the Bill’s Clause 2, which read, British Balochistan would be incorporated into the newly established dominion, Pakistan.

In the Treaty of 1854 and again in 1876 it was agreed between Balochistan and Britain that Baloch areas would be used by the British Raj for strategic purposes and in return Britain would defend Balochistan from external threats. The Indian Independence Act was passed on 18 July. After17 days, on 4 August 1947, Jinnah as the founder of Pakistan, signed the standstill agreement with Balochistan’s sovereign Mir Ahmad Yar Khan. The clauses where Jinnah recognised Balochistan’s independence and agreed to seek legal opinion on the issue of leased areas (British Balochistan) were broadcast on 11 August 1947.

However, legal opinion was never sought and British Balochistan was incorporated into Pakistan against all international laws and treaties. The remaining territories of Balochistan under Kalat’s (the capital and the seat of the government) control were invaded by Pakistan in April 1948 and territories were merged into Pakistan until Kalat was surrounded by the Pakistan army. Balochistan’s sovereign, Mir Ahmed Yar Khan was forced to sign the accession treaty on 27 March 1948. The British did not keep their promise as agreed in the treaty, instead the invading Pakistan army was led by a British general, Sir Frank Messervy. Balochistan was betrayed and was forced to join Pakistan, hence Nicholson’s prophecy turned out to be true.

According to Dr Karimzadi, in the early days of partition, millions of people were killed while travelling to India or Pakistan. Even Chaudhry Rahmat Ali, who coined the word Pakistan, was not spared. He came to Pakistan from Britain in April 1948, his possessions were confiscated, he was harassed and the state which he helped create by dividing India, turned against its own creator. Having realised his ideas gave birth to an Islamic Basilisk, Rahmat Ali left Pakistan and returned to Britain, a Christian dominated society and where he lived the rest of his life.

Pakistan has been an antithesis of humanity and democracy since its creation. The magnitude of oppression in Balochistan under its occupation can be assessed by the numbers of victims. Since 2006, in just a decade, more than 20,000 people have been forced to “disappear”. Almost 3,000 people have been murdered in the custody of Pakistani forces, including lawyers, doctors, teachers, journalists and students. Pakistan uses different tactics to murder the Baloch people and their supporters.

On 8 August, a gathering of Baloch and Pashtun lawyers was struck by a suicide bomber at Quetta’s Civil Hospital, instantly killing more than 50 lawyers. Most of them Pashtun and Baloch, they had gathered in the hospital to collect their colleague’s dead body, who had been targeted and killed earlier in the day.

The million-dollar question remains that, in Quetta, where no Baloch can travel from one road to another without being subjected to constant army check-point harassment, how was it possible for a suicide bomber to wipe out an entire generation of lawyers without internal support?

The writer is a political activist and member of the Royal Institute of International Affairs

jnbaloch@hotmail.co.uk


http://balochwarna.com/2016/08/21/jinnah-recognised-balochistans-independence/

How Balochistan became a part of Pakistan – a historical perspective
The true history of Balochistan is never shared or talked about among the general public of Pakistan
December 05, 2015, 7:14 pm/ 94 Comments
SHARE :

Yogeena Veena
Tweet
inShare
Balochistan consists of the south west of Pakistan. In the west it borders with Afghanistan and Iran and in the south it has the Arabian Sea. It accounts for nearly half the land mass of Pakistan and only 3.6% of its total population. The province is immensely rich in natural resources, including oil, gas, copper and gold. Despite these huge deposits of mineral wealth, the area is one of the poorest regions of Pakistan. A vast majority of its population lives in deplorable housing conditions where they don’t have access to electricity or clean drinking water. Before the partition of India and Pakistan, Balochistan consisted of four princely states under the British Raj. These were Kalat, Lasbela, Kharan and Makran. Two of these provinces, Lasbela and Kharan, were fiduciary states placed under Khan of Kalat's rule by the British, as was Makran which was a district of Kalat. Three months before the formation of Pakistan, Muhammed Ali Jinnah had negotiated the freedom of Baluchistan under Kalat from the British. Discussions were made about Kalat's relationship with Pakistan as it was formed. This ensued a series of meetings between the Viceroy, as the Crown’s Representative, Jinnah and the Khan of Kalat. This resulted in a communique on August 11, 1947, which stated that: a. The Government of Pakistan recognizes Kalat as an independent sovereign state in treaty relations with the British Government with a status different from that of Indian States. b. Legal opinion will be sought as to whether or not agreements of leases will be inherited by the Pakistan Government. c. Meanwhile, a Standstill Agreement has been made between Pakistan and Kalat. d. Discussions will take place between Pakistan and Kalat at Karachi at an early date with a view to reaching decisions on Defence, External Affairs and Communications.

Referring to a telegram of October 17, 1947 from Grafftey-Smith, the Political Department, in a note on Pakistan-Kalat negotiations, says that Jinnah had second thoughts regarding the recognition of Kalat as an independent sovereign state, and was now desirous of obtaining its accession in the same form as was accepted by other rulers who joined Pakistan. The same note mentioned that an interesting situation is developing as Pakistan might accept the accession of Kalat’s two feudatories, Lasbela and Kharan.

By October 1947, Quaid-i-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah had a change of heart on the recognition of Kalat as an “Independent and a Sovereign State”, and wanted the Khan to sign the same form of instrument of accession as the other states which had joined Pakistan. The Khan was unwilling to abandon the nominally achieved independent status but ready to concede on defence, foreign affairs and communications. However, he was unwilling to sign either a treaty or an Instrument, until and unless he had got a satisfactory agreement on the leased areas. Fears were also being voiced that officials of the Government of Pakistan might start dealing with the two feudatories of Las Bela and Kharan, and accept their de facto accession.

By February 1948, the discussions between Kalat and the Government of Pakistan were coming to a head. The Quaid wrote to the Khan of Kalat: “I advise you to join Pakistan without further delay…and let me have your final reply which you promised to do after your stay with me in Karachi when we fully discussed the whole question in all its aspects.” On February 15, 1948, Jinnah visited Sibi, Baluchistan and addressed a Royal Durbar, where he announced that until the Pakistan Constitution is finally written in about two years’ time, he would govern the province with the help of an advisory council that he would nominate. However, the main reason for Jinnah’s visit was to persuade the Khan of Kalat to accede to Pakistan. As it transpired, the Khan failed to turn up for the final meeting with him, pleading illness. In his letter to Jinnah, he said that he had summoned both Houses of the Parliament, Dar-ul-Umara and Dar-ul-Awam, for their opinion about the future relations with the Dominion of Pakistan, and he would inform him about their opinion by the end of the month.

When the Dar-ul-Awam of Kalat met on February 21, 1948, it decided not to accede, but to negotiate a treaty to determine Kalat’s future relations with Pakistan. On March 9, 1948 the Khan received communication from JInnah announcing that he had decided not to deal personally with the Kalat state negotiations, which would henceforth be dealt with by the Pakistan Government. So far there had not been any formal negotiations but only an informal request made by Jinnah to the Khan at Sibi.

The US Ambassador to Pakistan in his dispatch home on March 23, 1948 informed that on March 18, “Kharan, Lasbela and Mekran, feudatory states of Kalat” had acceded to Pakistan. The Khan of Kalat objected to their accession, arguing that it was a violation of Kalat’s Standstill Agreement with Pakistan. He also said that while Kharan and Lasbela were its feudatories, Mekran was a district of Kalat. The British Government had placed the control of the foreign policy of the two feudatories under Kalat in July 1947, prior to partition.

On March 26, 1948, the Pakistan Army was ordered to move into the Baloch coastal region of Pasni, Jiwani and Turbat. This was the first act of aggression prior to the march on Kalat by a Pakistani military detachment on April 1, 1948. Kalat capitulated on March 27 after the army moved into the coastal region and it was announced in Karachi that the Khan of Kalat has agreed to merge his state with Pakistan. Jinnah accepted this accession under the gun. It should be noted that the Balochistan Assembly had already rejected any suggestion of forfeiting the independence of Balochistan on any pretext. So even the signature of the Khan of Kalat taken under the barrel of the gun, was not viable, because the parliament had rejected the accession and the accession was never mandated by the British Empire either, who had given Balochistan under Kalat independence before India. The sovereign Baloch state after British withdrawal from India lasted only 227 days. During this time Baluchistan had a flag flying in its embassy in Karachi where its ambassador to Pakistan lived. To say that the Baloch have been ill-treated by all governments and military establishments since their land was illegally and forcefully taken over would be an understatement. As a result there have been continuous insurgencies, the largest of which was started in 2006 after the killing of Sardar Akber Bugti and 26 of his tribesmen by the Pakistan Army. A 2006 report by the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP) documented arbitrary arrests and detentions, torture, extra judicial and summary executions, disappearances and the use of excessive and indiscriminate violence by the Pakistan police, military, security agencies and intelligence forces. These figures are corroborated by Amnesty International. Kachkol Ali Baloch who is the former leader of Opposition in the Balochistan Assembly, alleged that about 4,000 people have been either missing or are detained without trial. The missing persons included around 1,000 students and political activists. Lately his own son was kidnapped and was finally released after being held captive for 14 months. Sardar Akhter Mengal, leader of the Baloch Nationalist Party (BNP) was one of the people arrested in 2006 on framed terrorism charges. The reality was he was planning a long march against the then President of Pakistan General Pervez Musharraf. He was later released in 2008 and all cases against him were dropped. The current Chief Minister of Balochistan, Dr. Abdul Malik Baloch, recently spoke at a seminar held in Punjab called ‘Stability in Balochistan – Challenges and possibilities”. He clearly stated that if the Baloch people are not given a right to the resources of their province, we would be looking at yet another insurgency and no one will be able to control it.

The true history of Balochistan is never shared or talked about among the general public of Pakistan. Our textbooks and other publications narrate a rhetoric which is far from the truth, and which has made the general public believe in a lie. It is the responsibility of the intellectuals, the teachers and the professors to learn and reveal the real facts according to non-tempered historical documents.


http://nation.com.pk/blogs/05-Dec-2...e-a-part-of-pakistan-a-historical-perspective