د پاکستان لپاره پيسې نشته چې مرستندوى کار

[Talal]

Except that bacha khan`s party was genuine and had the support of the masses. They had it up until Pakistan`s creation. Even then you couldn`t muster more than 50.5 % of the vote. More pashtuns bled to not have their division and not to be under british rule. In fact what happened was that the lackey`s of britain, the Muslim league, came in. All the major pashtun individuals who are considered freedom fighters in Pashtun`s history did not give a damn about muslim or pakistan. Bacha Khan, Samad Khan, Faqir i ipi, powindah, etc. The closest you can muster are people like Nishtar...their little movement are nothing compared to sacrifices of Powindah, Faqir, Khudai khidmathgaars, etc.

You may call them tantrums, I don`t care, but these are historical realities, you know a history that Pakistan does not have. Then again I am talking to someone who beleives Bangladesh should have never been part of Pakistan. Ironic considering they gave the most sacrifices to this country, and were its most ardent supporters.

What masses ? prove it mayn for once in your argument bring something other than your random BS. He has support but those who defied had an even greater support. All you seem to be able to do is discredit those who were opposed to Bacha Khan by your make-belief facts. Bacha Khan was a great leader and had a lot of support,but he opposed Pakistan's creation to the bitter end and when he saw Pakistan gaining indpendance he made a last ditch effort in the form of Bannu resolution, basically he had been failed by those whom he thought had his back. His supporters realising defeat showed little enthusiasm and thus Pakistan came into being with four provinces and Bacha Khan as a chief minister. This is history, and yours are tantrums

I say Bangladesh should have been an independent nation becuase logistically it was impossible for it to stay a part of Pakistan with having India in the middle. What happened with Bangladesh was unfortunate, but there was no other way, as for the riots we have to fight to gain something and we put up a fight that which is threatened. Pakistan did the same, despite meager resource Pakistan army had majority of the Insurgency under control till India opened a two front war and Pakistan had to conecentrate on its western border.

[BLS_1919v2.0]

Look what you are saying is your opinion. The reality is what I posted and has been stated in many scholarly articles. Read Selig harrison he talks about your so called Pakistan referendum in pashtunkhwa and the accession of Qalat state in pakistan. Stop pandering, and put something up worthwhile. Not like that article which basically proved you wrong lolzz.

[Talal]

Look what you are saying is your opinion. The reality is what I posted and has been stated in many scholarly articles. Read Selig harrison he talks about your so called Pakistan referendum in pashtunkhwa and the accession of Qalat state in pakistan. Stop pandering, and put something up worthwhile. Not like that article which basically proved you wrong lolzz.

History was written way before i could form my opinion and it would do you some good to learn some history so you may be able to distinguish it. Dude googling isnt gonna help you, you know it post the info here and we'll contest it

and What article ??

[BLS_1919v2.0]

History was written way before i could form my opinion and it would do you some good to learn some history so you may be able to distinguish it. Dude googling isnt gonna help you, you know it post the info here and we'll contest it

and What article ??

Here it is by Selig Harrison

"6
Remarks Not Checked Against Delivery
especially implementation of the 1973 Constitution leading to a meaningful devolution of
power to the provinces.
Now, turning to the Pashtuns, it is necessary to bear in mind that the 41 million
Pashtuns on both sides of the border have a long history of unity.
Prior to the British Raj, the Pashtuns had been politically unified since 1747 under
the banner of an Afghan empire that stretched eastward into the Punjabi heartland up to the
Indus River. It was traumatic for them when the British seized 40,000 square miles of
ancestral Pashtun territory between the Indus and the Khyber Pass, embracing half the
Pashtun population, and then imposed the Durand Line, formalizing their conquest. The
British subsequently handed over this territory to the new government of Pakistan in 1947
after a controversial 1947 referendum in the Northwest Frontier Province. The referendum
was administered under the control of British colonial authorities who openly favored the
accession of the province to Pakistan. Out of 572,799 eligible voters, only 292,118 voted.
This was because the referendum was boycotted by many Pashtuns. The Pashtun parties
that had overwhelmingly won the 1946 provincial elections wanted the referendum to
include the option of an independent “Pashtunistan” in addition to a choice between India
and Pakistan. The leaders of these parties were imprisoned prior to the referendum and
their newspapers banned after their “Bannu Declaration” calling for “Pashtunistan” on June
22, 1947."

http://www.carnegieendowment.org/files/0609_Remarks_Harrison.pdf

[Talal]

Here it is by Selig Harrison

"6
Remarks Not Checked Against Delivery
especially implementation of the 1973 Constitution leading to a meaningful devolution of
power to the provinces.
Now, turning to the Pashtuns, it is necessary to bear in mind that the 41 million
Pashtuns on both sides of the border have a long history of unity.
Prior to the British Raj, the Pashtuns had been politically unified since 1747 under
the banner of an Afghan empire that stretched eastward into the Punjabi heartland up to the
Indus River. It was traumatic for them when the British seized 40,000 square miles of
ancestral Pashtun territory between the Indus and the Khyber Pass, embracing half the
Pashtun population, and then imposed the Durand Line, formalizing their conquest. The
British subsequently handed over this territory to the new government of Pakistan in 1947
after a controversial 1947 referendum in the Northwest Frontier Province. The referendum
was administered under the control of British colonial authorities who openly favored the
accession of the province to Pakistan. Out of 572,799 eligible voters, only 292,118 voted.
This was because the referendum was boycotted by many Pashtuns. The Pashtun parties
that had overwhelmingly won the 1946 provincial elections wanted the referendum to
include the option of an independent “Pashtunistan” in addition to a choice between India
and Pakistan. The leaders of these parties were imprisoned prior to the referendum and
their newspapers banned after their “Bannu Declaration” calling for “Pashtunistan” on June
22, 1947."

http://www.carnegieendowment.org/fil...s_Harrison.pdf

and what the hell did i say ? that 51 % of the pashtuns voted FOR pakistan. Bacha khan knew that no matter what he did no matter how much support he riled up the opposition was gonna win because they were in the majority, the pashtuns who vouched for the Pakistan WERE the majority. And because Bacha Khan new that he quietly accepted the reality that was Pakistan and i suggest you do the same now

thanks for posting that god knows how long this would have gone on for

[BLS_1919v2.0]

Read the article stop jumping up and down. The article mentions.

[BLS_1919v2.0]

Here let me spoon feed it to you from this article
"Out of those Pashtuns who did vote in tribal gatherings convened by the British
authorities, all but 2,894 voted for Pakistan. Thus the issue was decided by 50.5 percent of
the eligible electorate amid charges of blatant rigging that still resonate today."

[Talal]

Here let me spoon feed it to you from this article
"Out of those Pashtuns who did vote in tribal gatherings convened by the British
authorities, all but 2,894 voted for Pakistan. Thus the issue was decided by 50.5 percent of
the eligible electorate amid charges of blatant rigging that still resonate today."

Out of 572,799 eligible voters, only 292,118 voted.

grab a calculator and i'll trash your BS some other time, i have exams... Next team read an article before quoting it "lolzz"

[BLS_1919v2.0]

Idiot, that is the point of saying it was rigged. That only 2,900 voted and that was considered a 50.5 % for Pakistan. That is where allot stuffing, etc comes along. You can't be this daft. Now read the entire article. Selig Harrison is one of the leading experts in South Asian affairs, the man runs circles around you and me in this area.

[BLS_1919v2.0]

Credere if the ruling party boycotts a referendum, then you can't call it representative. This is simple logic. No wonder Pakistan lost bangladesh, you patriots can't even fathom the simplest of things.

[BLS_1919v2.0]

Guys lets hug.

Samima bakhana ghwarram kho yaw tha praedae dae bal naasth dae noro tha tharikh khaee. He should read pashtun history before he comes lecturing others. Manana

[BLS_1919v2.0]

Mung ghwaarro che Pakhtaana raa ttol ko au dyuu raa shee zamung khalko thar mainz bifaaq jorrawaee..da dyuu dagha khabara zamung ittepaq par zidh dee.

[Talal]

Credere if the ruling party boycotts a referendum, then you can't call it representative. This is simple logic. No wonder Pakistan lost bangladesh, you patriots can't even fathom the simplest of things.

Alright buddy you wont believe any thing i say so lets bring Khan Abdul Wali Khan into this ok ? I thought before i hit the books i shoudl school on some history stuff

This is the reason why Bacha Khan's KK's didnt participate in the referendum. They weren't opposed to the idea of Pashtuns becoming a part of Pakistan. It was a game of taking credit, on both parties behalf. Pashtuns had already decided to become a part of Pakistan, it was a non-issue
Khan Abdul Wali Khan writes in “Facts are Facts”


" Khudai Khidmatgars’ first objection was that since the Congress and the Muslim league had both agreed on Partition, and since they considered themselves bound by the congress decisions (Bacha Khan himself used to represent Khudai Khidmatgars in the Congress working Committee), and since the congress had accepted that NWFP had to be part of Pakistan, then why hold a referendum? "


" For their part the Khudai Khidmatgars decided that if the British were insistent on holding the plebiscite despite the general acceptance that NWFP would go to Pakistan, then following the same principle of self-determination the province should also have the freedom to a third option, of an in dependent Pukhtoonistan. Mountbatten, however, refused to include this alternative. The Khudai Khidmatgars then decided that since between the available two options the decision had already been taken and the referendum was there fore pointless they would boycott it”h

[Talal]

Guys lets hug.

Hey samima long time, how've you been

[BLS_1919v2.0]

Alright buddy you wont believe any thing i say so lets bring Khan Abdul Wali Khan into this ok ? I thought before i hit the books i shoudl school on some history stuff

This is the reason why Bacha Khan's KK's didnt participate in the referendum. They weren't opposed to the idea of Pashtuns becoming a part of Pakistan. It was a game of taking credit, on both parties behalf. Pashtuns had already decided to become a part of Pakistan, it was a non-issue
Khan Abdul Wali Khan writes in “Facts are Facts”


" Khudai Khidmatgars’ first objection was that since the Congress and the Muslim league had both agreed on Partition, and since they considered themselves bound by the congress decisions (Bacha Khan himself used to represent Khudai Khidmatgars in the Congress working Committee), and since the congress had accepted that NWFP had to be part of Pakistan, then why hold a referendum? "


" For their part the Khudai Khidmatgars decided that if the British were insistent on holding the plebiscite despite the general acceptance that NWFP would go to Pakistan, then following the same principle of self-determination the province should also have the freedom to a third option, of an in dependent Pukhtoonistan. Mountbatten, however, refused to include this alternative. The Khudai Khidmatgars then decided that since between the available two options the decision had already been taken and the referendum was there fore pointless they would boycott it”h

That doesn't change the fact that the referendum was rigged or boycotted does it? Wali Khan in his book mentioned these things. He goes on to further consider Pakistan as a plan by the british to sideline the Soviets. As he writes

” 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.”