Cultural similarities between Pashtuns and Balochis

[kanishka]

-First off, we both speak Iranic langauges (with exception of the dravidic brahui speakers)

-We are a conservative people with a different life style of living. Tajiks and Punjabis are more urbanized or agricultural and had a long history of being developed countries while Baloch and Pashtuns are nomadic/farmers and have less history of being developed nations.

-We are vengeful and divide our race into a vast networks of tribes.

-Is it thus feasible for Balochistan to be annexed into Loy Afghanistan or Pashtunistan? Could we have a bi-national Pashtun-Baloch nation or will Balochis feel alienated by Pashtun domination?

The fact is, we can modernize and develop Pashtuns and Balochis. eliminating blood feuds and turn them into civilized educated successful people without the tainting effects of being Persianized or Urdu/Punjabitized.

[tripledouble]

Not all Baloch are close to Pashtuns; many of them over lap in both culture and genetics with Sindhis and many Sindhis have Baloch blood, there are also overlaps between Northeast Balochistan and South Punjab and that's why the Bugtis and Marris resemble Punjabis because their districts border Punjab.

The only parts that share similarities with Afghanistan are the northwest: Nushki,Kalat,Chagai and some towns just south Quetta like Bolan.

The ones in Panjgur and Makran are mixed with Africans although some even look like Iranian-Baloch, also the Omanis ruled over Balochistan too so they have Arab influence apart from the Dravidian admixture that the Brahui people possess.

[Bengal_Tiger]

I knew a Balochi. This particular Balochi I knew told me that he would be happy with a Baloch-Sindhi state as Sindhis have a lot of ties to the Baloch.

Many i.e. 30-40% of Sindhis are actually Balochis who view themselves as "Sindhis" (but with a Baloch origin). They would be accepted in pan-Balochi jirgas but also as Sindhis by other Sindhis.

Zardari is a Sindhi of Baloch origin. His tribe the Zardari tribe would be accepted in a pan-Balochi jirga. Abdul Qadir Magsi, the Sindhi nationalist leader is from the Baloch tribe, the Magsis.

Karachi in Sindh was originally a Baloch city anyway.

However in terms of culture e.g. tribal system, feuds, martial character, honour the Balochis have more in common with Pashtuns than Sindhis not of Baloch origin. Mainstream Sindhis are an Indic race related to Punjabis and Gujaratis. Balochis are an Iranic race related to Kurds and Pashtuns.

Baloch would not accept being part of Afghanistan or Pakhtunkhwa but want independence and some want autonomy.

[kanishka]

I knew a Balochi. This particular Balochi I knew told me that he would be happy with a Baloch-Sindhi state as Sindhis have a lot of ties to the Baloch.

Many i.e. 30-40% of Sindhis are actually Balochis who view themselves as "Sindhis" (but with a Baloch origin). They would be accepted in pan-Balochi jirgas but also as Sindhis by other Sindhis.

Zardari is a Sindhi of Baloch origin. His tribe the Zardari tribe would be accepted in a pan-Balochi jirga. Abdul Qadir Magsi, the Sindhi nationalist leader is from the Baloch tribe, the Magsis.

Karachi in Sindh was originally a Baloch city anyway.

However in terms of culture e.g. tribal system, feuds, martial character, honour the Balochis have more in common with Pashtuns than Sindhis not of Baloch origin. Mainstream Sindhis are an Indic race related to Punjabis and Gujaratis. Balochis are an Iranic race related to Kurds and Pashtuns.

Baloch would not accept being part of Afghanistan or Pakhtunkhwa but want independence and some want autonomy.

ahh, so secession of Sindhudesh and Balochis will leave Punjabis and Afghans landlocked, right?

[Bengal_Tiger]

ahh, so secession of Sindhudesh and Balochis will leave Punjabis and Afghans landlocked, right?

1. My assumption is that the default Balochi position is to allow Pashtuns access to the sea. There is no reason to block Pashtuns from doing so. Purely from a Balochi self-interest viewpoint:

a: This makes money for Balochistan as a transit point between goods/trade from the Persian Gulf to Central Asia.

b: Having a strong Pakhtunkhwa is in the interests of the Baloch who would not want a strong Punjab or a Pakhtunkhwa occupied by Punjab ("Pakistan").

2. Most countries want trade and regional connectivity and would not block neighbours having access to the sea unless there are hostilities or tensions, and as far as I know Pashtuns and Balochis (unlike Punjabis) have no such issues.

In fact Balochis would perhaps compete with Sindh (in the form of Karachi) for ships/companies to use their ports.

3. However Balochis would view Punjab as a historical enemy, an aggressor and oppressor responsible for the suffering of many Baloch and the deaths of many.

[tripledouble]

1. My assumption is that the default Balochi position is to allow Pashtuns access to the sea. There is no reason to block Pashtuns from doing so. Purely from a Balochi self-interest viewpoint:

a: This makes money for Balochistan as a transit point between goods/trade from the Persian Gulf to Central Asia.

b: Having a strong Pakhtunkhwa is in the interests of the Baloch who would not want a strong Punjab or a Pakhtunkhwa occupied by Punjab ("Pakistan").

2. Most countries want trade and regional connectivity and would not block neighbours having access to the sea unless there are hostilities or tensions, and as far as I know Pashtuns and Balochis (unlike Punjabis) have no such issues.

In fact Balochis would perhaps compete with Sindh (in the form of Karachi) for ships/companies to use their ports.

3. However Balochis would view Punjab as a historical enemy, an aggressor and oppressor responsible for the suffering of many Baloch and the deaths of many.

There would be tensions over Helmand because Baloch nationalist claim it as part of Greater Baluchistan.

[Toramana]

I think Baluch and Pashtun people are the same most of the times sane the Baluch of the coastal regions. I don't think there would be conflict between Pashtuns and Baluch. Both people have lived in peaceful co-existence for centuries and have intermarried etc. In Afghanistan's internal politics, Baluch have mostly been in alliance with Pashtuns.

Baluch are mostly found in Nemroz and lower Helmand not upper Helmand.

It is likely to a reasonable degree though that some kind of confederation type of arrange occurs between Baluchis and Pashtuns.

And there are many countries that are landlocked in Central Asia and South Asia. That doesn't mean they have fared badly.

In future land routes will main transportation modes. There are many projects in the pipeline e.g. China-Russia Euroasia Silk Road etc. That would make transporatation of goods speedier that it is presently through sea routes.

[Kushan Prince]

There would be tensions over Helmand because Baloch nationalist claim it as part of Greater Baluchistan.

No they don't. Most Baloch nationalists see it as a pashtun area and don't include it in their maps. Plus, there is no such thing as a "greater balochistan" in fact there never was.

[Sarbani]

No they don't. Most Baloch nationalists see it as a pashtun area and don't include it in their maps. Plus, there is no such thing as a "greater balochistan" in fact there never was.

A few southern regions in Helmand, Nimruz and Kandahar are Baloch so I'd imagine Baloch nationalists would claim those regions.

Here's a map of the ethnic groups in Af-Pak:

http://baask.com/diwwan/index.php?action=media;sa=media;in=5245;preview

Here's a map of independent Balochistan:

http://lubpak.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/balochistan-conspiracy.jpg

[Sarbani]

3. However Balochis would view Punjab as a historical enemy, an aggressor and oppressor responsible for the suffering of many Baloch and the deaths of many.

If Balochistan gained independence, I doubt they would still hold their grudge. India fought on Bangladesh's side in the 1971 war against Pakistan yet most Bangladeshis I know support Pakistan over India in cricket. Even the ex-Soviet countries in Central Asia get along on fine terms with Russia. History is history and I'm sure the Balochis would let go of it. If having good relations with Punjab is in the best interest of their country, they wouldn't hold a grudge. Once Balochistan gains independence their will probably be some friction but over time the relations will improve.

[Sarbani]

Balochis share a lot of cultural similarities with Pashtuns, but they're culturally closer to Sindhis and Saraikis than they are to us.

And I don't think they'll be part of a Loy Afghanistan/Pashtunistan. Looking at things right now, it seems they'll probably gain independence before us and if they do then it doesn't seem likely we'll be able to annex an independent Balochistan especially considering the fact the Balochis would be a minority in it.

[Kushan Prince]

A few southern regions in Helmand, Nimruz and Kandahar are Pashtun so I'd imagine Baloch nationalists would claim those regions.

Here's a map of the ethnic groups in Af-Pak:

http://baask.com/diwwan/index.php?action=media;sa=media;in=5245;preview

Here's a map of independent Balochistan:
http://lubpak.com/wp-content/uploads...conspiracy.jpg

That map of Baluchistan is what it is supposed to look like after independence if they achieve it from pakistan. Modern day Baluchistan is a british creation who merged pashtuns areas and baloch areas together.

[Bengal_Tiger]

If Balochistan gained independence, I doubt they would still hold their grudge. India fought on Bangladesh's side in the 1971 war against Pakistan yet most Bangladeshis I know support Pakistan over India in cricket. Even the ex-Soviet countries in Central Asia get along on fine terms with Russia. History is history and I'm sure the Balochis would let go of it. If having good relations with Punjab is in the best interest of their country, they wouldn't hold a grudge. Once Balochistan gains independence their will probably be some friction but over time the relations will improve.

1. Yes most Bengalis prefer Muslim Pakistan over Hindu India in cricket. That is because despite Pakistani propaganda and ignorance which is then spread to Saudis, Turks and others, Muslim nationalism/identity is actually more important to Bengalis than Punjabis. In 1971 it is Pakistanis that turned against Muslim unity by blocking a party of Muslims (Awami League led alliance which also consisted of Baloch and Pashtuns) that won the elections from assuming office and then starting an operation of rape and genocide in the then east Pakistan.

Pakistanis talk a lot about Islam but Bengalis are in real terms more sincerely religious. Yahya Khan and Bhutto are both known drinkers, Mujib wasn't. The Pakistani nationalist narrative (then adopted by Saudis and Turks) completely de-Islamizes Bengalis and seeks to portray Pakistan as some sort of symbol of Islam.

The following is an example of the reality:

Pakistan Minister.Rehman malik,resaiting the hully QURAN(surah-e-ikhlas) - YouTube

A former minister couldn't even recite suratul Ikhlas and his fellow ministers obviously viewed it as unimportant and were all smirking.

Aside from your comments about cricket, the current ruling party in Bangladesh is not pro-Pakistan so there is a limit to how far they interact with Pakistan, so the 71 war is still a factor. Our official position is still that we want an apology, a fair division of pre-71 assets and compensation.

2. However your point about countries forgetting about the past is correct (there are some exceptions e.g. Armenia and the Turks, Israel and the Holocaust, Bangladesh and the 71 genocide) e.g. Japan was nuked by the US and has good relations with them, Algerians were massacred by France but they have good relations with them now etc.

As for the Baloch and Punjab, it all depends on how much the Baloch will need Punjab. The fact is Punjab will be a landlocked state and will need access to the sea via Sindh or Balochistan. Sindh by virtue of its 30-40%+ Baloch population will be a sister nation/ally of Balochistan anyway.

Unless the Balochis need the Punjabis there is no need for them to try and interact with Punjabis too much.

Balochistan should aim to be similar to the resource rich Gulf Arab states on the western side of the Persian gulf, and those states, e.g. Qatar, the UAE do not need Pakistan except as a source of cheap labour.