Citizenship law and the migration of 1947

Micheal Corleone

Active member
Messages
140
Reactions
235
Nation of residence
Ukraine
Nation of origin
Bangladesh
In regards to afgans naturalizing as pakistanis, there's a reliable youtube source, caspianreport that touched on this sensitive topic. apparently the pashtuns did try to break up pakistan and form their own state based on ethnicity. could this be why it's much more difficult now?
 

VCheng

Contributor
Think Tank Analyst
Messages
488
Reactions
535
Nation of residence
United States of America
Nation of origin
Pakistan
In regards to afgans naturalizing as pakistanis, there's a reliable youtube source, caspianreport that touched on this sensitive topic. apparently the pashtuns did try to break up pakistan and form their own state based on ethnicity. could this be why it's much more difficult now?

Technically, the Pakistan that was created in 1947 ceased to exist in 1971. One of the fragments laid claim to the old name, and the other chose a new name for itself.
 

Kaptaan

Experienced member
Think Tank Analyst
Messages
1,734
Reactions
4,071
Nation of residence
United Kingdom
Nation of origin
Pakistan
Make your points with reason but don’t write posts with racist undertones
Technically, the Pakistan that was created in 1947 ceased to exist in 1971. One of the fragments laid claim to the old name, and the other chose a new name for itself.
One of best posts I have read from you and with regards to the subject and probably the best rendition of 1971 event I have ever read

n regards to afgans naturalizing as pakistanis, there's a reliable youtube source, caspianreport that touched on this sensitive topic. apparently the pashtuns
It was not Pashtuns [trust me if we did go for it Pakistan would be ripped into shreds faster the you lot can munch a decent Hilsa fry] but the Afghan government. It might have escaped your knowledge but Pakhtuns make up about 30% of the Pakistan military ~ some of the most noteable regiments in PA are almost entirely Pakhtun. We are Pakistan's shield.
 

Micheal Corleone

Active member
Messages
140
Reactions
235
Nation of residence
Ukraine
Nation of origin
Bangladesh
One of best posts I have read from you and with regards to the subject and probably the best rendition of 1971 event I have ever read

It was not Pashtuns [trust me if we did go for it Pakistan would be ripped into shreds faster the you lot can munch a decent Hilsa fry] but the Afghan government. It might have escaped your knowledge but Pakhtuns make up about 30% of the Pakistan military ~ some of the most noteable regiments in PA are almost entirely Pakhtun. We are Pakistan's shield.
This should clearly explain the point I tried to make
 

VCheng

Contributor
Think Tank Analyst
Messages
488
Reactions
535
Nation of residence
United States of America
Nation of origin
Pakistan
How exactly did they do that? By wobbling their heads and uttering "arrrrraaay"?

By attested affidavits indicating their choice. Please read up on the whole saga as you may find it illuminating. Pakistan also repatriated Bengalis making the same choice on its soil in the mid 70s. Pakistan further accepted its responsibilities in this regard in the 1990s, only to renege on them.
 

Kaptaan

Experienced member
Think Tank Analyst
Messages
1,734
Reactions
4,071
Nation of residence
United Kingdom
Nation of origin
Pakistan
By attested affidavits indicating their choice. Please read up on the whole saga as you may find it illuminating. Pakistan also repatriated Bengalis making the same choice on its soil in the mid 70s. Pakistan further accepted its responsibilities in this regard in the 1990s, only to renege on them.
I am not read on the matter sufficiently to make a informed conclusion but I will say this. All states at some point have reneged on their promises. You should read up on 100,000s of prisoners who were handed over to Soviet Union knowing they would be butchered. This after various promises to them.

The problem is Karachi is already a boiling pot which could sink the entire country. Personbally that would have nominal effect on me as my ancestral village just falls inside K-Pk in Hazara. A dissolved Pakistan down to it's forming four/five provinces might not be such a bad thing. However can you imagine what would happen in a independent Sindh?

Just imagine the shitfest between Mohajors and numerically dominant Sindhi's. So reality demands difficult choices. It reminds me of how Bush Jr manufactured a third category of prisoner or illegal enemy combatants. A perfect grey space between POW and a suspected criminal. This drew widespread outrage at the time because anybody could be renditioned and held incommunicado. Essentially having no rights and tortured in now infamous "waterboarding". This example tells us even superpowers who cry from the lofty towers of "rule of law" fall to the "ends justify means" when the going get's tough.

So if Pakistan is also reneging in order to prevent a bigger disaster in Sindh I think it is understandable. It's not like the world looks at Pakistan favourably anyway.
 

Nilgiri

Experienced member
Moderator
Aviation Specialist
Messages
9,269
Reactions
96 18,815
Nation of residence
Canada
Nation of origin
India
2 Continuation of certain citizens of Eire as British subjects

There are many special provisions with Ireland given previous political union status (and remnant of it in case of Northern Ireland).

All Irish citizens for example are free to join and serve in the British military immediately. There is freedom of movement for citizens of both countries I believe too (predating EU agreements etc, later subsumed under EU membership, but now with Brexit brought to fore again esp given GFA agreeent for the political border existing in Ireland).

I believe there are a number of other provisions, explicit or implicit (say with naturalisation process) between the two given this special earlier union....and effectively their version of partition.

Basically a number of things didn't expire/change in Irelands case even with the severe civil war that arose at end of WW1 and intensity of blood shed in that (relative to population)...and also circumstances before it and after it ....that created significant animosity between all sides involved.

But of course its directly involving UK (which fully incorporated Ireland as a constituent country under Queen Anne reign I believe), rather than it as imperial colonial power that could more easily wash its hands of a far flung culturally-distant area of the world it had acquired by an earlier greed and supremacist narrative. Hence for example why British Nationality of any kind was not bequeathed to former British Indian subjects.
 

Kaptaan

Experienced member
Think Tank Analyst
Messages
1,734
Reactions
4,071
Nation of residence
United Kingdom
Nation of origin
Pakistan
There are many special provisions with Ireland given previous political union status (and remnant of it in case of Northern Ireland).

All Irish citizens for example are free to join and serve in the British military immediately. There is freedom of movement for citizens of both countries I believe too (predating EU agreements etc, later subsumed under EU membership, but now with Brexit brought to fore again esp given GFA agreeent for the political border existing in Ireland).

I believe there are a number of other provisions, explicit or implicit (say with naturalisation process) between the two given this special earlier union....and effectively their version of partition.

Basically a number of things didn't expire/change in Irelands case even with the severe civil war that arose at end of WW1 and intensity of blood shed in that (relative to population)...and also circumstances before it and after it ....that created significant animosity between all sides involved.

But of course its directly involving UK (which fully incorporated Ireland as a constituent country under Queen Anne reign I believe), rather than it as imperial colonial power that could more easily wash its hands of a far flung culturally-distant area of the world it had acquired by an earlier greed and supremacist narrative. Hence for example why British Nationality of any kind was not bequeathed to former British Indian subjects.
UK and Ireland have what is known as CTA.

The Common Travel Area (CTA; Irish: Comhlimistéar Taistil) is an open borders area comprising the United Kingdom, Ireland, the Isle of Man, and the Channel Islands. The British Overseas Territories are not included. Based on agreements that are legally binding, the internal borders of the Common Travel Area (CTA) are subject to minimal controls,

 

Kaptaan

Experienced member
Think Tank Analyst
Messages
1,734
Reactions
4,071
Nation of residence
United Kingdom
Nation of origin
Pakistan
One day I expect similiar arrangement with Afghanistan, Iran and Indian held Kashmir. Possibly even Indian Punjab. A latter day Durrani Empire v.02

1601416428306.png
 

VCheng

Contributor
Think Tank Analyst
Messages
488
Reactions
535
Nation of residence
United States of America
Nation of origin
Pakistan
I am not read on the matter sufficiently to make a informed conclusion but I will say this. All states at some point have reneged on their promises. You should read up on 100,000s of prisoners who were handed over to Soviet Union knowing they would be butchered. This after various promises to them.

The problem is Karachi is already a boiling pot which could sink the entire country. Personbally that would have nominal effect on me as my ancestral village just falls inside K-Pk in Hazara. A dissolved Pakistan down to it's forming four/five provinces might not be such a bad thing. However can you imagine what would happen in a independent Sindh?

Just imagine the shitfest between Mohajors and numerically dominant Sindhi's. So reality demands difficult choices. It reminds me of how Bush Jr manufactured a third category of prisoner or illegal enemy combatants. A perfect grey space between POW and a suspected criminal. This drew widespread outrage at the time because anybody could be renditioned and held incommunicado. Essentially having no rights and tortured in now infamous "waterboarding". This example tells us even superpowers who cry from the lofty towers of "rule of law" fall to the "ends justify means" when the going get's tough.

So if Pakistan is also reneging in order to prevent a bigger disaster in Sindh I think it is understandable. It's not like the world looks at Pakistan favourably anyway.

So if I understand your answer above correctly, you went from denying Pakistan's abandonment of its citizens, to admitting you do not know much about the issue, to making excuses about how hard it would be live up to its international legal responsibilities, to saying that others have done it too, leading to the evident conclusion that this is ignorance and whataboutery at its most predictable, sadly.

No wonder Pakistan is where it is.
 

Kaptaan

Experienced member
Think Tank Analyst
Messages
1,734
Reactions
4,071
Nation of residence
United Kingdom
Nation of origin
Pakistan
So if I understand your answer above correctly, you went from denying Pakistan's abandonment of its citizens
Your now playing your own lovely "whataboutery". You produced some claims of "affidavits". Since I accepted that at face value and have no way of confirming this I went with benefit of doubt. That is what you do in discussions.

And I will say it again. Your people the Mohajirs are gonna get driven into the sea if they don't give up this idea of insisting Pakistan is a private dumping ground for Indian Muslims. It is not. When our ancestor decided to have their lands federate into Pakistan it never came with the "take in all the circumcized Gangadeshi's". As I said if push ever came to shove we the natives would always have our soil.

You won't. Or sorry you do but it comes with beef lynching mobs.
 

VCheng

Contributor
Think Tank Analyst
Messages
488
Reactions
535
Nation of residence
United States of America
Nation of origin
Pakistan
Your people the Mohajirs are gonna get driven into the sea if they don't give up this idea of insisting Pakistan is a private dumping ground for Indian Muslims. It is not. When our ancestor decided to have their lands federate into Pakistan it never came with the "take in all the circumcized Gangadeshi's". As I said if push ever came to shove we the natives would always have our soil.

Fair enough, as long as the same standards for accepting potential new citizens from the West or the East apply, there would be no hypocrisy. Offering citizenship to Afghans, as PMIK did, is utterly hypocritical, unless Pakistan's previous commitments to its citizens are also honored. The ramifications of one or the other, or both choices, are debatable, but the legal foundations must be exact and applied equally. That is all.
 

VCheng

Contributor
Think Tank Analyst
Messages
488
Reactions
535
Nation of residence
United States of America
Nation of origin
Pakistan
Just an excerpt, for those who may be interested in learning more about the matter:

The 1973–74 population exchanges

The break-up of Pakistan, the independence of Bangladesh, and the war between India
and Pakistan left thousands of individuals stranded in states of which they no longer
wanted to be a part. In March 1973, more than a year after the end of the war, Sheikh
Mujibur Rahman, by then Prime Minister of Bangladesh, wrote to UN Secretary=General
Kurt Waldheim requesting UN assistance in what was referred to as a ‘repatriation’ operation.
Some of those repatriated were people who had been stranded in one
or other half of the country during the conflict, while others chose to move from
Bangladesh to Pakistan or vice versa as a result of the changed political circumstances. In
April, India and Bangladesh made a joint statement calling for the simultaneous
repatriation of prisoners of war and of civilian internees and their families. The
statement also called for the repatriation of Bengalis in Pakistan and of Pakistanis in
Bangladesh.This proved to be a major step forward in breaking the deadlock resulting
from Pakistan’s continuing refusal to recognize Bangladesh’s independence. The
following month, the High Commissioner visited Pakistan and Bangladesh at the
request of the Secretary-General to discuss the possibility of a mass repatriation with
the governments.

On 28 August 1973, the governments of Bangladesh, India and Pakistan signed
the New Delhi Agreement, which included provisions for the simultaneous repatriation
of three primary groups. These comprised Pakistani prisoners of war and
civilian internees in India, all Bengalis in Pakistan, and ‘a substantial number of
non-Bengalis’ present in Bangladesh who had ‘opted for repatriation to Pakistan’
. The
‘non-Bengalis’ were commonly referred to as Biharis, since a majority of them were
Indian Muslims originally from the state of Bihar in India who had come to East
Pakistan at the time of partition in 1947.
The United Nations was requested to
provide assistance to facilitate the repatriation. Given its recent involvement as the
Focal Point, the Secretary-General asked UNHCR to coordinate all activities relating to
the humanitarian effort. In so doing, UNHCR worked closely with the International
Committee of the Red Cross.

Under the terms of the New Delhi Agreement, the return of Pakistani prisoners of
war and civilian internees was to be conducted bilaterally between India and Pakistan.
UNHCR was to assist other categories of people in their repatriation. High
Commissioner Sadruddin Aga Khan therefore launched another humanitarian appeal
for US$14.3 million on 13 September 1973, stressing ‘the role this large-scale
repatriation operation may play in creating conditions conducive to peace and stability in the
sub-continent’.24 In November, the High Commissioner visited both Bangladesh and
Pakistan again to assess for himself how the operation was proceeding.
By the end of October 1973, a huge air repatriation operation was under way
with aircraft loaned by East Germany, the Soviet Union and the United Kingdom.
During November, there were six planes on mission duty, carrying an average of
1,200 people per day. By late January 1974, some 90,000 people had been transported
from Pakistan to Bangladesh, and over 44,000 from Bangladesh to Pakistan
.25
In the absence of diplomatic relations and communications facilities between
Bangladesh and Pakistan, the air operation was fraught with difficulties. UNHCR had
to negotiate clearances for overflying rights over India and provisions for technical
landing.26 It had to liaise constantly with governments, airlines and other partners to
carry out the operation. In effect, UNHCR became the de facto implementing agency
for the 1973 New Delhi Agreement.

By mid-February 1974, over 200,000 people had been repatriated under the
terms of the New Delhi Agreement. The successful implementation of the agreement
played no small part in Pakistan’s decision on 22 February 1974 to recognize
Bangladesh.
On 1 July 1974, in agreement with the governments concerned, UNHCR
phased out the repatriation operation which had begun the previous September. By
that time, some 9,000 people had been transported by sea between Bangladesh and
Pakistan, and some 231,000 people had been airlifted across the sub-continent. Those
airlifted included some 116,000 Bengalis who went from Pakistan to Bangladesh,
some 104,000 non-Bengalis who went from Bangladesh to Pakistan, and some
11,000 Pakistanis who were airlifted from Nepal to Pakistan, having previously fled
there overland from Bangladesh.27 It was, at the time, the largest emergency airlift of
civilians ever organized
.

The Biharis in Bangladesh

One of the unresolved issues at this time was the status and citizenship of the Biharis,
which in many cases still remains unresolved.
At the time of partition in 1947,
around a million Muslims from the Indian state of Bihar moved to what became East
Pakistan. Most spoke Urdu, which bound them to West Pakistan, but they fared
relatively well in East Pakistan. As tensions between West and East Pakistan increased,
however, the Biharis were perceived as being on the side of West Pakistan. During
1971, many Biharis joined Pakistani militias or collaborated with the Pakistani army.
As a result, after the surrender of the Pakistani army in mid-December 1971, the
entire Bihari community faced the wrath of Bengali nationalism and Biharis were
viewed as collaborators of the Pakistani administration and troops. Many Biharis were
killed and much of their property was seized.

Although Biharis were among those accepted by Pakistan under the August 1973
repatriation accord, Pakistan was slow in giving clearances
.

28: (UNHCR Branch Office, Dacca, to UNHCR HQ, cable, 16 Feb. 1974, 1/9/1/SCSU/PAK, F/HCR 11.1)

At a further meeting of the three countries’ foreign ministers in New Delhi in April 1974, a new tripartite
agreement on a second phase of repatriations was reached. More than 170,000 Biharis
moved to Pakistan under the terms of these agreements.29 But Pakistan interpreted the
categories of ‘non-Bengalis’ set out in the agreement restrictively and did not take back
all Biharis. In addition to this earlier movement, between 1977 and 1979 nearly 9,900
Biharis repatriated to Pakistan followed by another 4,800 Biharis in 1982. Finally, in
1993, 53 Bihari families were accepted by Pakistan before protests there stopped the
process.


Observers attribute Pakistan’s reluctance to accept the Biharis, who have always
regarded themselves as Pakistani nationals, to the fear that their presence might
exacerbate already existing ethnic and political tensions in Pakistan. In Bangladesh, the
Biharis have encountered problems acquiring citizenship, as Bangladeshi citizenship
provisions dating from 1972 deny citizenship to someone who ‘owes, affirms or
acknowledges, expressly or by conduct, allegiance to a foreign state’.30 Although many
Biharis have in practice been accepted in Bangladesh, in 1999 over 200,000 Biharis
were still living in 66 camps with poor facilities scattered around Bangladesh. Their
 

Kaptaan

Experienced member
Think Tank Analyst
Messages
1,734
Reactions
4,071
Nation of residence
United Kingdom
Nation of origin
Pakistan
@Saiyan0321 As I said before to you. This is in realm of politics. Those so called Paks in Bangla are actually Indian Bihari. The same significant voter base of the MQM in Karachi. You already know the situation in Karachi. It might not be too bad if what happens in Karachi had no influence on rest of the country. We could just quarantine the bloody place and throw the keys away or just let the Sindhi's fight it out with Mohajirs until one side prevails.

Alas. Crude this analogy might be but it's conveys my point well. Karachi is like my rectun/anus. Everything from my entire body, head, arms, all extremities eventually discharges from my anus. Such is the 'geography' of my body that I may not be able to see, visit my anus but it is vitally important to my entire body. That importance has nothing to do with the multiple bacteria breeding on it. It's the location as the discharge chute that makes it important and my body is hostage to it. If it get's plugged I fcuked within [pardon my french] within few days.

Point being. Karachi is vital as the ONLY "chute" for 200 million people. Entire country inhale and exhale from there. That is becase of the nature of Indus basin geography. So Karachi is deadly important. So do we want to bring in more Bihari';s to add firepower to MQM votebank. Do we want to lay the grounds for a future ethnic war erupting between Mohajirs and Sindhi's. Bear in my mind so far most Sindhi's are effectively sedated by extreme poverty and wadera system. As we move forward and a more politically aware Sindhi's youth emerge even Pakistan Army would struggle to put a cap on the inevitable chaos that would take over.

Funny thing is that it is simple boys from villages in K-Pk and Punjab wearing the uniform of the Pakistan Army who bring order to this mess. The very army that @VCheng likes to lampoon at every corner.

Bottom line. Political realities are hard and sobering.
 

VCheng

Contributor
Think Tank Analyst
Messages
488
Reactions
535
Nation of residence
United States of America
Nation of origin
Pakistan
Bottom line. Political realities are hard and sobering.

But the law is the LAW!

(That is true bottom line.)
:D

PS: I do not lampoon the Army. I do respect it when it does its duty, and call its illegal acts precisely that.
 

Kaptaan

Experienced member
Think Tank Analyst
Messages
1,734
Reactions
4,071
Nation of residence
United Kingdom
Nation of origin
Pakistan
But the law is the LAW!
Oft repeated cliche. I don't thik you know but my professional background is in law. Politics cannot be circumscribed by law. Law changes according to political order. It's not like law came from god. Even interpretation of law has limitless possibilities which is why you see in US, adminstration shoving their favourites for judges in supreme couret.

And that law is law is exactly what George Floyd though as his life was squeezed out of him. Ask the Blacks in America their take on "law is law". You seem to expect a developing country like Pakistan standards that even US cannot live upto.
 

Kaptaan

Experienced member
Think Tank Analyst
Messages
1,734
Reactions
4,071
Nation of residence
United Kingdom
Nation of origin
Pakistan
I do respect it when it does its duty, and call its illegal acts precisely that.
Which is in your interpretation never or almost never. I suppose your take on PA is like how Blacks view US Police.
 

VCheng

Contributor
Think Tank Analyst
Messages
488
Reactions
535
Nation of residence
United States of America
Nation of origin
Pakistan
Oft repeated cliche. I don't thik you know but my professional background is in law. Politics cannot be circumscribed by law. Law changes according to political order. It's not like law came from god. Even interpretation of law has limitless possibilities which is why you see in US, adminstration shoving their favourites for judges in supreme couret.

And that law is law is exactly what George Floyd though as his life was squeezed out of him. Ask the Blacks in America their take on "law is law". You seem to expect a developing country like Pakistan standards that even US cannot live upto.

Ignoring your whataboutery, I suppose I can conclude that you do not respect the rule of law either, to remain on topic in this thread.
 

Follow us on social media

Top Bottom