Opinion of hypothetical Pashtunistan map?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 29, 2024, 05:18:14 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  International General Discussion (Moderators: afleitch, Hash)
  Opinion of hypothetical Pashtunistan map?
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Opinion of hypothetical Pashtunistan map?  (Read 1409 times)
phk
phknrocket1k
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,906


Political Matrix
E: 1.42, S: -1.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: October 28, 2007, 04:51:24 AM »



Same as topic.
Logged
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,206
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: October 28, 2007, 06:19:35 AM »

The Beluchis are not going to be happy with it.
Logged
opebo
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 47,009


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: October 29, 2007, 12:39:43 AM »

Haha, I love the way it divides Pakistan into an even sillier looking sliver.

But yes, as Lewis Trondheim said, it is probably not necessary to include Balouchistan in the Pashtun dumping ground.  Its a bit more functional and integrated with the Pakistouni state than the 'Tribald Areas'.
Logged
ag
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,828


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: October 29, 2007, 05:04:04 PM »

The Beluchis are not going to be happy with it.

That's most definitely true. Also, chunks of Kashmir that have nothing to do w/ the pashto. Overall, I think this is about twice the size of the pashto-populated area. To sum up: if such a state were created, half of it would secede immediately.
Logged
ag
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,828


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: October 29, 2007, 05:09:24 PM »
« Edited: October 29, 2007, 05:23:44 PM by ag »

But yes, as Lewis Trondheim said, it is probably not necessary to include Balouchistan in the Pashtun dumping ground.  Its a bit more functional and integrated with the Pakistouni state than the 'Tribald Areas'.

And it has nothing much to do w/ the Pashtun.  Actually, not all of NWFP is pashtun as well - not all of NWFP is tribal. And Gilgit (in Kashmir) does not, to the best of my knowledge, have anything to do w/ that either.

Actually, an interesting question would be: would such a state have a pashtun majority. I am not quite sure, fankly.

PS I might be wrong, but it seems such a state would have about 30 mln. people, of whom only a bit more than a half (I'd guess, well under 20 mln.) would be pashtun. This state would have about 6 mln. baluchi, over 2 mln. each of  brahui and hindko, over a million of farsi speakers, and zillions of other minorities, some of those sizeable. It would have almost no pashtuns in the south and in the east, so it cannot be a pasthun state.

Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,144
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: October 29, 2007, 06:41:25 PM »

As others have already said, the Baluch will not be happy, but a breakup of Pakistan would cause Iran some indigestion since if the Pakistani Baluch get an independent state, there would would agitation in southeast Iran for the Irani Baluch to join them.

Logged
Padfoot
padfoot714
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,531
United States


Political Matrix
E: -2.58, S: -6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: October 30, 2007, 03:50:26 AM »

Just let the entire Middle East rage in sectarian wars until they figure out for themselves how to fix the wonky borders imagined up by France and the UK.  They'll sort it out eventually.  Tongue
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,144
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: October 30, 2007, 12:44:02 PM »

Just let the entire Middle East rage in sectarian wars until they figure out for themselves how to fix the wonky borders imagined up by France and the UK.  They'll sort it out eventually.  Tongue

Except that in the case of South Asia, it's the Russians and the British and Russians that are to blame, not the French.
Logged
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,206
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: October 30, 2007, 12:49:40 PM »

Given just who decided the general lines of British foreign and colonial policy by 1947, without consulting the Brits unless they asked nicely, the Americans belong on that list as well.
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,724
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: October 30, 2007, 01:01:52 PM »

Given just who decided the general lines of British foreign and colonial policy by 1947,

Better than having it decided by the Foreign Office Smiley
Logged
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,206
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: October 30, 2007, 01:09:33 PM »

Given just who decided the general lines of British foreign and colonial policy by 1947,

Better than having it decided by the Foreign Office Smiley
Let alone the Colonial Office. Smiley
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.04 seconds with 13 queries.