why Balochistan want to be a separet country from Pakistan?
447513
Because they feel they have been marginalized by the Pakistani gov't, that they have been left on the fringes of the economy while other states get wealthier.
535091
It would be a lot easier if you got some one to tutor you. Most people here aren't from Pakistan.
91948
this sounds wierd. in urdu, the nationallanguage of pakistan, the word "pak" means pure and "stan" means land
661092
Jammu and Kashmir were originally part of India. So was Pakistan and parts of Afghanistan. The British invaded and changed everything. They divided up the Punjab (at that time it included the current state of Punjab, West Punjab in Pakistan, Haryana, Hichmal Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir, and parts of Afghanistan) and basically made one area that was for Muslims and included the Sindhi area of current Pakistan (Pakistan), and another area that was going to be part of India.\n\nKashmir should be part of India since it was originally part of India to begin with. However, it was originally under the rule of the Pashtuns in Afghanistan until Ranjit Singh and his Sikh/Hindu armies conquered Kashmir and took the land from Nadir Shah (as well as the Kohinoor diamond, which was later stolen by the British and can now be seen in the Crown Jewels at Buckingham Palace).\n\nThe reason Pakistan wants Kashmir is because there are a lot of Muslims there (or at least that's what their reasoning is). I think they want Kashmir because of its pristine beauty and ability to gain several tourists (nobody really travels to Pakistan to sight see). India kind of has the same agenda too. Both governments aren't really the best in the world, but Pakistan is probably worse off than India.\n\nI think that Kashmir should belong to India because we conquered it, we lived there, and Hindus and Sikhs were living there before the British invaded.
390331
There are two reasons for this. One, America stands to profit from a leader like Musharraf. Musharraf may have snatched the position of power in an unscruplous way, but he still manages to keep his country fairly peaceful and does not encourage jehad(holy war) openly. So it makes sense having a leader with a popular vote (despite no democracy), one who does not bomb India/the world. \n\nSecondly, India's association with the US is fine, but it would never accept any war attacks on China from its soil. The next best bet? Pakistan of course. Pakistan also benefits economically out of this friendship - F 16s, nuclear technology, emergency aid et al. So the US actually benefits having a base to declare war on China(similar to Puerto Rico to keep an eye on Cuba) \n\nNow, having voiced my opinion on the Pak friendship, US actually preaches democracy and tries to install the same whereever possible. But when trying to install democracy or instigating change does not benefit the US economically, it does not do anything. Makes sense, after all US is a capitalistic economy. \n\nIts all a case of how-is-it-going-to-help-me and that is really what makes the US great!
243148
Thats not true actually.  Its definately hard to get a visa to a lot of Muslim countries.  My dad was denied visa to go to Pakistan.  But its easier for us in some instances I think because we are less likely to immigrate to another country.
1108287
Definitely...! when people of these three countries will get matured and think to become better citizen and will realize that dividing on religion basis was not a good Idea.\nThey have same culture, same skin, same problems and same idea then how can they be stay different with each other. It is only the ego of Leaders which is responsible to keep them apart. Jinna wanted to be first Ruler of India, Nehru also wanted the same. Jinna was concerned that in election he could loss becoz he is not a Hindu so he raised the issue of religion. They divided the country and became leader. I don't know who was more capable but both of them did good jobs for there countries.\nIt looks different countries, but ppl from these three countries are very attached. When a girl in Jaipur grows marriageable then her father look for bride not only Jaiselmer and Jodhpur but to Lahore and other cities of Pakistan. Barat travel from India to Pakistan, Bangladesh to India... then how you can say that they will not become united.. \nI am 100% sure they will ...
405750
There is a rough draft of the constitution that is available on several Khalistan support sites. There is nothing final as the Punjab region is not its own country. What is interesting is that every state in India wants to be its own country, which makes the Punjab/Khalistan dilemma no different from a lot of other states who want independence from India.\n\nWhat I'm trying to get at is that Khalistan most likely won't happen and never will unless the Indian government is completely overthrown and complete chaos ensues within South Asia.\n\nI, as a Punjabi, am against the idea of Khalistan just because the creation of such a country would displace Hindus and Muslims who have lived in the Punjab for many years before the birth of Sikhism, who's ancestors have supported Sikhism since the beginning teachings of Guru Nanak, and have always supported and allied with Sikhs at all times in history.\n\nYou can say that Hindus betrayed Sikhs in the 1980's, but you fail to realize that it wasn't the Punjabi Hindus who killed, raped, and tortured innocent Sikhs, it was Hindus from UP, Haryana, and Rajasthan that did that. Hindus living in Punjab who attacked Sikhs were Hindus from neighboring states that were placed in Punjab in order to give Hindus the majority vote in the region by the Indian government.\n\nKhalistan is distancing itself from its true allies: Hindus and Muslims who have lived and died in the Punjab, have fought side-by-side with Sikhs, and have cherished every bit of Punjabi culture as any Sikh or Jatt.\n\nAt the same time, who said Sikhs were the only people who could decide if Khalistan should be free? Punjabi Hindus have a right to say whether or not Khalistan should be formed and so do native Muslims in Punjab. Punjab isn't just the home of Sikhs, but the home of Muslims, Hindus, Parsis, Pathans, and Kashmiris. This is all of our land and we need to support each other, not break apart the state again by creating a country that will severly hurt Punjab culturally, ethnically, and religiously.
414132
The Land of Pure,The country of diverse cultures.The country of four seasons.The country of Hamaliaian mountains.\nThe country of honest and friendly people,there is so much about Pakistan.\nI love Pakistan.
893698
I actually want a distance between India and the Muslim states.\nIn this respect I would prefer India to increase cordiality with states like Japan, the USA, Israel and the EU etc.\n\nAlthough, having stated this, our major long term threat is not Paki Land, it is China.  China has already begun to make inroads everywhere, and if India doesn't try and compete we will show ourselves to be the biggest political novices on the face of the earth.
936505
Obviously you have never been to Afhganistan. I'm currently deployed in Afghanistan. The mountains are bigger and Higher than the Rocky Mountains with only about 1/100th of the roads that the Rockies haven and you can't drive more that 25 miles per hour because the roads suck. The insurgents have been hiding and defending the same towns, roads, mountains for thousands of years. Russia invaded with 4 times the soldiers we came with and we are doing 10 times a better job than they did. Even though our goals are different. If you are so bright join up come on over and find him. But you can't go into Pakistan where he probably is anyway.
857801
No. I guess u got the wrong info. Let me give u some facts on India / Pak regarding Kashmir since 1947. Its long but i hope u read it. Read especially the part about partition, and the states having a choice whom to join.\n\n\nPakistan claims that Kashmir should be a part of Pakistan bcoz majority population is Muslim (mainly after terrorizing and driving out 600,000 Hindus). The Pak army just wants to use Kashmir as a base for a larger agenda of destroying and talibanizing India and converting it into a Islamic theocracy. And India's claim is based on the treaty signed by the then king of Kashmir (same treaty was signed by other princely states for accession to India) and secularism.\n\nUN Security Council resolutions 38-40, and particularly the resolution of August 13, 1948, said that Pakistan had attacked Kashmir, and ordered Pakistan to withdraw its forces and its tribals (those were disguised as tribals but they were pak army men). Pakistan has yet to obey UN Security Council and withdraw from lands (now called POK, Pak Occupied Kashmir) controlled illegally.\nRecently released documents reveal that in 1948, the then US Secretary of State Gen. George C. Marshall told the pro-Pak British that Kashmirs accession with India was legal and final as far as US was concerned.\nIn 1952, the Kashmir legislature, elected in elections recognized by observers as free and fair, with 100% of the legislators Muslim, voted to ratify Kashmirs accession with India. And the elections after that too were similar. Compare POK with Indian Kashmir.\n\nPakistan gave away a large part of the POK to China, which now claims those lands as its own.\n\nIn April 1993, then CIA director James Woosley at an open Senate hearing said, Pakistan, while not yet on the State Department's list of state sponsors of terrorism, but is Aon the brink. (in 1993, now its worse).\nIn December 1999, the Director of CIA George Tenet and State Department Coordinator for Counterterrorism Michael Sheen testified before a Senate subcommittee that US has evidence that Pakistan is a state-sponsor of terrorism against India.\nIn 2000, State Departments report on terrorism described Pakistans official involvement in terrorism against India, but fell short of adding Pakistan to list of countries sponsoring terrorism because that would have automatically triggered severe sanctions against an old cold-war ally.\nIn 2000, a bipartisan Congressional commission on terrorism recommended to the State Department that sanctions be imposed on Pakistan for its role in terrorism, but this report was ignored.\n\nThe British government in Spring 2001 put several Pakistan-supported organizations openly engaged in terrorism on the official list of terrorist organizations, to be followed later by the US.\nMajor political parties in Pakistan and Pak media have repeatedly asked Pak governments over the years to break bonds with terrorists and get out of the Kashmir issue, because supporting terrorists has resulted only in increasing Talibanization of Pakistan.\nBenazir Bhutto, ex-Pak Prime Minister, has said that ISI (Pakistani governments intelligence service) is a force onto itself, and she had no knowledge of what ISI was doing when she was PM.\nOn 11-21-01, the Hon. Mr. Robert D. Blackwell, US Ambassador to India, told the press that Pakistan-supported individuals involved in killings in Kashmir are terrorists and that They are not freedom fighters. No country will be permitted to provide sanctuaries to terrorists. He made similar comments again on 2-27-02\n\nPak Governments direct and obvious involvement in terrorism against India over decades has resulted in 50,000 HINDUS being amongst 70,000 innocent civilians KILLED and 500,000 TO 600,000 HINDUS FLED KASHMIR IN TERROR; world has been silent about this ethnic cleansing of Hindus from Kashmir.\n\nPakistan, which created, nurtured and protected Taliban, has claimed that Taliban is not terrorist.\nPakistan press reported in Dec. 2001 th
391332
Omg, u desperate man! Im a Pakistani, and ur just not doing us proud. Just stay in Pakistan with ur sheep and cattle. Let the Pakistanis i the West do our thing !
499748
It seems as if Pakistan is definitely vague, in true terms, as far as it's stand on Afghanistan is concerned. yes, it seems to be playing a two sided role with Afghanistan, but then again that's POLITICS isn't it?\n\ni feel both are dangerous up to some extent. Pakistan may be more though. Osama quite possibly is in Pakistan...
1003123
no but pakistan and india were one nation in the past and the british led to their division which was very depressing and awful as their were massacres all around as people of hindu and muslim religion were just running towards the indian and pakistani parts (now) respectively.
221976
There are no different things as military and politics as for now in pakistan. It was a democracy and hopefully will be one soon.
681626
L'opinion: Pakistan needs UN and OIC umbrella to send peace-keeping forces to Iraq\nIraq-Pakistan, Politics, 7/21/2003 \n\nPakistan will only send peace-keeping missions to Iraq under a mandate of the United Nations and the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), Pakistani president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, who paid an official visit to Morocco, told Morocan daily "L'opinion."\n\nMusharraf said Pakistan has not yet made a decision regarding a request to send troops to Iraq for a peace-keeping mission, underlining that the final decision should serve Pakistan's national interests and its relations with Islamic countries in the region.\n\nOn the situation in the Middle East, Musharraf said the only means to establish sustainable peace in the region goes through carrying on negotiations that would lead to a comprehensive and fair solution in conformity with United Nations resolutions and based on the legitimate right of the Palestinian people of self-determination.\n\nEvoking Arab Maghreb countries' position on the Kashmir question, the Pakistani president underscored that he is certain that these countries fully understand Pakistan's position concerning its support for a peaceful solution to the conflict.\n\nMusharraf also said Pakistani authorities do not have any new information about where Ussam Bin Laden is, underlining that they don't know for sure if he is dead or still alive. In the same vein, he hoped Pakistani-Afghan relations would be further reinforced on the basis of mutual sovereignty and non-interference in the internal affairs of the other party.\n\nHe added that Pakistan is participating in the re-construction of Afghanistan and that it fully supports the interim administration of president Hamid Karazay.