Nope. Incorrect.
Balochistan always got 17% of gas revenue as royalty. That's higher than world average. For example Siberia in Russia and Alaska in USA both gas producers, get about 12% as royalty.
LOC Flare up: Related news and Discussions
- Thread starter Parul
- Start date
Balochistan always got 17% of gas revenue as royalty. That's higher than world average. For example Siberia in Russia and Alaska in USA both gas producers, get about 12% as royalty.
Fauji Foundation is since 1953 , long before WOT started. I'm not sure what you are on about.
They started with a few hundred thousand dollars and today are worth 20 billion dollars due to hard work.
True. Trust in police is in short supply in Pakistan. But likewise do Indians trust their police?
About us having guns has more to do with our ethnic and cultural traditions than anything else.
It's a feel good thing to have a gun or few in the house and use it now and again in marriages or recreational firing.
I used to shoot jackals in the mountains , never killed one due to sub par marksmanship
I'd take your figures as genuine without verifying them . That still doesn't explain why the local economy never developed. Or perhaps all those monies were spent purchasing the loyalties of the sardars. That didn't help either. For you still have one of the longest running freedom struggles in your nation .
Mujahid force is not regular army. It's the Northern light infantry and classed as paramilitary.
More of a backup force than frontline.
My point is very simple and has little to do with the CPEC which is a recent development. The very fact that the PA is a mercantilist armed force should be a worrying one . But you seem to have a wholly benign and opposite view to what is globally perceived as received wisdom .
No. It's more to do with Baloch tribal mindset and tribal culture.
They send their feudel lords to legislative assembly and those lords only serve themselves.
The whole provincial budget disappears including development funds without any development.
In fact the Balochistan province gets Highest per capita budget among all provinces. Punjab gets least. But they are in shambles. Punjab at least gets some development work.
That trust in local police is in short supply doesn't mean the local populace go about arming themselves . We have an illicit gun culture in States like UP & Bihar where the law and order scenario was dismal . Pretty much as could be expected where every individual household has guns and every individual expected to cater to his own security. Though the scenario has changed for the better in Bihar compared to what it was in the 80's & 90's and with the new adminstration in UP , we are seeing improvements .
You seem to be conveying a very benign picture of possession of guns . Switzerland and Canada too have a high per capita possession of guns as does the US. One can only compare the statistics of gun violence related deaths in all these nations to understand the co relation between gun ownership and fatalities due to such possession to know that in the US it's a curse.
Last edited:
That has more to do with the nation building project . Which in turn has to do with nurturing institutions. Which in turn has a lot to do with democracy , its nurturing and it's continuation however imperfect the system allowing it time to stabilize and like water it will find its own level else what you will see is a continuation of feudalism like you do in practically all the provinces of Pakistan with all its attendant ills .
True.
Many things need to be done.
The biggest thing you guys did and we didn't is creation of many small provinces. So that federation remains strong without any chance of being blackmailed by a province too large.
I don't think that's totally correct. Yes, backup force, not frontline, but no, not the NLI.
The NLI were local recruits in Gilgit-Baltistan (in the relevant case, as far as India is concerned, from that part of Baltistan that happens to be in Pakistani hands) who were not organised in formal military formations until after Kargil. In recognition of their deeds (or their sacrifices), they were absorbed into the regular Army as the NLI. According to Nawaz Sharif, who is, of course, a very popular Pakistani politician adored by all young, non-military commentators on defence matters, the entire contingent was wiped out.
That particular member (NOT Safriz) who keeps parroting that the personnel manning the Kargil bunkers who had to be extricated by the Indian Army were mujahids, later substituted by regular army units is a liar; the NLI were incorporated as a paramilitary unit substituting for the numerous paramilitary contingents (including the Gilgit Scouts, who mutinied under Major Brown, massacred the state forces and overran Skardu and besieged Leh in 1947-48) very far back, long before Kargil, and they were the ones who fought to the end in the bunkers. Under the IA indicting fire by the artillery, there was no question of any substitution, on the contrary, the heaviest losses were suffered during their evacuation of the bunkers and their retreat.
Their earlier status was like the Indian Assam Rifles, or the Eastern Frontier Rifles, or some units that dangle between the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Defence Ministry.
The Mujahid Regiment is a regular army unit now, I think; I'm not sure. The point is its composition. It was formed as an initially paramilitary unit, the irregulars who couldn't/didn't get into the AK Regiment; their heritage is the same as the AK Regiment, the Sudans of west Jammu, around 60,000 ex-servicemen with experience of fighting in the British Indian Army in WWII, who banded together long before the Mahsud tribals and those whom we call 'kabiliyas' in folk-lore and popular re-tellings and killed off the very small numbers of state forces in west Jammu, forming themselves into the independent state of Azad Kashmir, with a capital at Muzaffarabad.
They are more or less like our Territorial Army; they form part of the Border Action Teams, along with 'regular' irregulars, the Punjabi terrorist trained by the Pakistan Army and infiltrated into the Vale of Kashmir, and the SSG. They have nothing to do with the Baltis who form the NLI.
I don't know whom you are talking to, presumably one of the Dirty Dozen I have on my ignore list, but your mentions of the Baloch and their past and present conditions are very tempting. However, that would derail the thread, so put this down as a near-miss, and let's part on this subject, on this thread, on that note.
^ Well known for treating other blog members with condescension and disdain; allies with and provides support to well known, ideologically affiliated trolls while falsely claiming to be concerned about the blog’s quality and direction; then pejoratively refers to those who don’t bend over for him as the Dirty Dozen.
Unbelievable amounts of hypocrisy.
Unbelievable amounts of hypocrisy.
If the economy and police fail, then do you expect the people to simply die from invasion or gangs? Gangs exist regardless of whether locals own guns. Evil forces have existed since time immemorial. The best way to be secure is to have the ability to defend oneself without relying on anyone else.
By that logic, no one needs arms. Just hope that no one is evil and live like a fool. It is important to ensure that one is not enslaved in the name of order. Chaos can be undone over a generation or two but not slavery. Everyone must secure his life himself and only rely on police during "stable time". Law itself is slavery and has to be taken with a pinch of salt. A bunch of people with nexus can't be allowed to rule over the world by writing laws and using arms while depriving the people of arms to fight back.
Neither contradicting nor affirming what you said, but on a point of information....
India started off with the provinces of British India that she inherited from that colony. Rajasthan, PEPSU and others were added as conglomerations of princely states outside those provinces that had come into the republic due to the accession of these princely states to the republic. The result was a crazy quilt of small, medium and large administrative tracts; it was impossible to make any sense out of them.
In 1956, there was an attempt at consolidation. In this, all areas speaking the same language, other than Hindi-speaking regions, were grouped together. All the Tamil speakers came into Tamil Nadu, minus other language-speaking regions that were divested: Malayalam and Telugu mainly. Similarly all Telugu speakers were brought together; the erstwhile Hyderabad state joined with the Telugu-speaking bits of the old Madras, for instance. What we call Odisha similarly, and Assam. And so on, throughout, except for the Hindi-speaking ones. Those were consolidated into a few very large blocks: Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, and, to some extent, Rajasthan (if we consider the Rajasthanis to be Hindi-speaking).
The point is that these were not small provinces. Each of the large ones was as big as the Pakistani Punjab. It wasn't in the division into small states that helped; it was the nature of division of powers between centre, the government of the Union of India, and the states. It was also the essentially uniform policy of Nehru and Patel combined that made for a strong centre - a very strong centre - and weak States. The foaming-at-the-mouth fanboys who now tell us who was good and who was bad, including the foaming-at-the-mouth one who tells us that partition was due to the divisive policy of the Congress (=Nehru), have no clue what was done to ensure that the new country stayed together.
I doubt that they will ever have a clue.
This note is to correct your impression about 'small' states having been good for India, and about the absence of these having been bad for Pakistan.
There's a reason why a good deal of people here don't engage you or take you seriously . You interject in the middle of an exchange , take a post out of context and add your two bits of wisdom which on its own has some merit to it but taken in the larger context comes across as a rambling rant .
Allow me to address the points you have raised , as best as I can based on a sincere attempt of endeavouring to understand what you have posed .
The best way to secure oneself is through collective security which as the populace grows takes on the contours of a nation state with elaborate internal and external security mechanisms always in need of constant vigil to prevent internal & external subversion . I hope you don't bring up the need for justification of such nation States or its predecessors - the kingdoms as every such "King " who went on to found a "kingdom" started of or inherited his army which at some point of time was used for loot or plunder . Babur did that , Shivaji did that . Yes , in case of the former and his ilk Loot was religiously sanctioned apart from supplementing the income as was destruction of holy places belonging to other faiths . In case of the latter and his ilk they served the purpose that loot normally serves - that of supplementing other sources of income . But I digress.
Out of these endeavours is the foundation of a kingdom erected and it's in pursuance of such endeavours that kingdoms were built , sustained and destroyed. This is to be taken as the gist of how and why kingdoms came into existence and by no means have I penned a template in line with the aims and maxims of political science .
Again , please have a Dekko at my opening statements . We were referring to a dysfunctional state and the need for personal security which in the absence of the state providing it or with the state machinery being inadequately prepared for such tasks usually manifests itself in individual citizens making their own arrangements which while solving one set of problems create about a dozen other sets of problems . One of which is what you've referred to - namely the distinction and connection between chaos and slavery in the name of order either through the seizure of power by an ideological group to form a Regime from inside or through invasion by foreign despots for loot or colonialism. ( I'm trying to make educated guesses here from the series of disjointed / incoherent rambling arguments you have pasted together in order to construct a post )
Last edited:
The state must be geared for both scenarios of war and peace. War time requires Militia while peace time requires division of labour and different institutions. So, the presence of both is important. Both must exist parallel to each other. You are merely insisting that gun ownership on an individual level will cause dozens of problems without considering "ORGANISED MILITIA" system. You are assuming that people need "salaries and material incentives" to organise themselves and hence a formation of state which is untrue.
A state fails because it lacks ideology. Ideology is "purpose of existence" and is mandatory for a state to exist. The invasion will happen when a state fails and there is no alternative mechanism to defend. So, in such cases, militia is what saves the day. In both cases, organised militia system still remains valid.