Yasser Latif Hamdani writing in "The Analyst World" Mumbai:
"The Balochistan separatists’ case rests on a fallacy. They claim that Kalat State – a princely state- was somehow placed on a different footing than other princely states of India. If this were the case, someone forgot to inform the British. I refer to Imperial Gazetteer of India, V. 4, Page 96. Kalat State and Lasbela State are listed as two native states under the control of British political agent of the Balochistan agency, just as twenty states in Rajputana such Bundi, Karauli and Alwar.
This is an inferior position to the states that enjoyed political relations with the crown for example Hyderabad or Travancore. Given that no princely state of any kind was allowed to assume sovereignty after partition – not even those which had a better claim than Kalat- the Baloch argument does not fulfill the legal criterion."
"The Balochistan separatists’ case rests on a fallacy. They claim that Kalat State – a princely state- was somehow placed on a different footing than other princely states of India. If this were the case, someone forgot to inform the British. I refer to Imperial Gazetteer of India, V. 4, Page 96. Kalat State and Lasbela State are listed as two native states under the control of British political agent of the Balochistan agency, just as twenty states in Rajputana such Bundi, Karauli and Alwar.
This is an inferior position to the states that enjoyed political relations with the crown for example Hyderabad or Travancore. Given that no princely state of any kind was allowed to assume sovereignty after partition – not even those which had a better claim than Kalat- the Baloch argument does not fulfill the legal criterion."
Read more here.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Be respectful and you shall be heard.