4- The Baloch are of Arab origin For obvious reasons, the religious leaders of Balochistan have done their bit to prove that the Baloch are from the Hamzeh family. To sustain this theory, nor more evidence has been introduced than a couple of poems and a holy wishful thinking (praying).
 
balochistan
Baluch nationalism  
  BALOCH
  Soj Sekeen
  Guestbook
  Who Are Baloch ?
  Genral Information About Baluch People
  Title of your new page
  may balohistan
  may kar o pad
  sangataan salam
  baloch o balochi mayaar
  makoraan
  balochiiii
  gawadar - paanwaan - dusht
  turbat - mand
  man hum lotaan
  syasaat
  pajjjaaaaaar
  rah 0 rah bandh
  nee dastaan madaree
  kadi mah hum shar bayeeeeen
  Maha balocheen
baloch free 2007 		 
Who Are Baloch ?
who Are Baloch? Who Are the Baloch? To the neighboring Pushtun tribes, who live in fertile riverine valleys, Baluchistan is "the dump where Allah shot the rubbish of creation. But for the Baluch, their sense of identity is closely linked to the austere land where they have lived for at least a thousand years. According to the Daptar Sha'ar {Chronicle of Genealogies), an ancient ballad popular among all seventeen major Baluch tribes, the Baluch and the Kurds were kindred branches of a tribe that migrated eastwards from Aleppo, in what now is Syria, shortly before the time of Christ in search of fresh pasturelands and water sources. One school nationalist historians attempts to link this tribe ethnically with the Semitic Chaldean rulers of Babylon, another with the early Arabs, still others with Aryan tribes originally from Asia Minor. In any case, there is agreement among these historians that the Kurds headed toward Iraq, Turkey, and northwest Persia, while the Baluch moved In to the coastal areas along the southern shores of the Caspian sea, later migrating into what are now Iranian Baluchistan and Pakistani Baluchistan between the sixth and fourteenth centuries. Western historians dismiss the Daptar Sha'ar as nothing more than myth and legend, totally unsubstantiated by verifiable evidence, and it remains for future scholars to probe into the murky origins of the Baluch. These legends are cited here not because they have serious historiographic value but because they are widely believed and are thus politically important today. For the most part, Aleppo is a unifying symbol of a common identity in the historical memories shared by all Baluch. In recent years, however, Arab attempts to attribute Arab ethnic origins to the Baluch have become a divisive factor in the nationalist movement. Whatever the authenticity of the Aleppo legends, scholars in Baluchistan and in the West generally agree that the Baluch were living along the southern shores of the Caspian at the time of Christ. This consensus is based largely on linguistic evidence showing that the Baluchi language is descended from a lost language linked with the Parthian or Median civilizations, which flourished in the Caspian and adjacent areas in the pre-Christian era. As one of the oldest living languages, Baluchi is a subject of endless fascination and controversy for linguists. It is classified as a member of the Iranian group of the Indo-European language family, which includes Farsi (Persian), Pushtu, Baluchi, and Kurdish. Baluchi is closely related to only one of the members of the Iranian group; Kurdish. In its modern form, it has incorporated borrowings from Persian, Sindhi, Arabic, and other languages, nonetheless retaining striking peculiarities that can be traced back to its pre-Christian origins. Until150 years ago, the Baluch, like most nomadic societies, did not have a recorded literature. Initially, Baluch savants used the Persian and Urdu scripts to render Baluchi in written form. In recent decades, Baluch nationalist intellectuals have evolved a Baluchi script known as Nastaliq, a variant of the Arabic script. Ethnically, the Baluch are no longer homogeneous, since the original nucleus that migrated from the Caspian has absorbed a variety of disparate groups along the way. Among these "new" Baluch were displaced tribes from Central Asia, driven southward by the Turkish and Mongol invasions from the tenth through the thirteenth centuries, and fugitive Arab factions defeated in intra-Arab warfare. Nevertheless, in cultural terms, the Baluch have been remarkably successful in preserving a distinctive identity in the face of continual pressures from strong cultures in neighboring areas. Despite the isolation of the scattered pastoral communities in Baluchistan, the Baluchi language and a relatively uniform Baluch folklore tradition and value system have provided a common denominator for the diverse Baluch tribal groupings scattered over the vast area from the Indus River in the east to the Iranian province of Kerman in the west. To a great extent, it is the vitality of this ancient cultural heritage that explains the tenacity of the present demand for the political recognition of Baluch identity. But the strength of Baluch nationalism is also rooted in proud historical memories of determined resistance against the would-be conquerors who perennially attempted, without success, to annex all or part of Baluchistan to their adjacent empires. Reliving their past endlessly in books, magazines, and folk ballads, the Baluch accentuate the positive. They revel in the gory details of ancient battles against Persians, Turks, Arabs, Tartars, Hindus, and other adversaries, focusing on how valiantly their generals fought rather than on whether the Baluch won or lost. They point to the heroes who struggled to throw off the yoke of more powerful oppressors and minimize the role of the quislings who sold out the Baluch cause. Above all, they seek to magnify the achievements of their more successful rulers, contending that the Baluch were on the verge of consolidating political unity when the British arrived on the scene and applied their policy of divide and rule. This claim is difficult to sustain with much certainty on the basis of the available evidence. Nevertheless, the Baluch did make several significant attempts to draw together politically, and their failure to establish an enduring polity in past centuries does not prove that they would fail under the very different circumstances prevailing today. As Baluch writers argue, given the technologies of modern transportation and communication, the contemporary Baluch nationalist has new opportunities for cementing Baluch political unity that were not open to his forebears.
Baluch nationalism  
  Baluch nationalism, since its birth

Baluch nationalism, since its birth, has faced the problem of "international" frontiers which divide the Baluch among countries - Pakistan, Iran/and Afghanistan. The genesis of the problem pre-dates the Perso-Baluch (1871 and 1895-1905), 4 Seistan (1872-1896)(and Baluch-Afghan (1895) frontiers. The demarcation of these frontiers made the problem more acute and protracted it so that^ with the rise of Baluch nationalism in 193O, the Baluch were divided between Iran, Afghanistan and what was then British India. For obvious reasons, Pakistan and Iran had a common interest in suppressing the Baluch claim of self-determination and they have adopted a joint policy for this purpose. Afghanistan did not share the Iranian and Pakistan policies but stated its own claim for Baluchistan, as part of its demand for Pushtunistan. The Baluch-Afghan line as an international border is disputed by the Afghans, who regard the frontier with Pakistan as drawn by the British and agreed to by the Afghans only under duress.

To understand the complexity of the issue involved in the division of Baluchistan, it is important to have some understanding of the historical circumstances involved. The strategic position of Baluchistan, Iran, and Afghanistan in terms of commanding the principal trade routes between South-West Asia, Central Asia, and South Asia became important for Britain and Russia in the context of the geopolitical expansion of the two empires in Asia during the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th. In 1854, Britain entered into a treaty with the Khan, ruler of Baluchistan, in order to defend its territories against an external invasion from Central Asia and Iran. At the same time the Iranian rulers, who had lost their northern provinces to the Russians, pursued a policy of expansion towards Baluchistan in order to compensate for the lost areas. However, in 187O,the British Government agreed to demarcate the border with the Khanate of Baluchistan. In 1871, the British Government accepted the Iranian proposal and appointed Maj. General Gold-smid as Chief Commissioner of the joint Perso-Baluch Boundary Commission, Iran was represented by Mirza Ibrahim, and the Khanate of Baluchistan was represented by Sardar Faqir Muhammad Bizenjo, the Governor of Makran, The Baluch delegate submitted a claim for Western Baluchistan and Iranians claimed most of Makran including Kohuk. After several months of negotiations, Goldsmid divided Baluchistan into two parts without taking into consideration history, geography, culture or religion, and ignoring the statements of Baluch chiefs^ho regarded themselves as subjects of the Khan. Goldsmid's decision was based on political considerations. He aimed to please Iran in order to keep Iran away from Russia.

The Kohuk dispute; Kohuk is situated on the Perso-Baluch line. In 1871, General Goldsmid assigned Kohuk to the Khanate of Baluchistan on the following bases:
1. That the chief of Kohuk stated that he considered himself a feudatory of the
Khan.
2. That the Persian Commissioner, Ibrahim, refused to investigate the merits of
the question.
The Iranian government finally agreed to the decision in a letter dated September 4, 1871, but in a separate note to Allison (the British Minister at Tehran) "on the same day requested that, on consideration, a small portion of territory, including Kohuk, Isfunda and Kunabasta, would be made over to Persia." The question was referred to the Government of British India and General Goldsmid was consulted. Goldsmid changed his view and favoured the transfer to Iran because "it would make a far more compact and better boundary for Persian than for Khelat territory." At the same time, British India did not deem it necessary to justify declaring that territories which were not legally part of it should belong to Iran. Consequently, the British Government decided to prepare an amended map and to exclude Kohuk and other villages from the Khan's territory in order to give Iran the opportunity to occupy the area. An amended note and map were then sent to Tehran. In the amended note the districts of Kohuk, Isfunda,and Kunabasta were excluded from the Khanate of Baluchistan. When the decision to exclude this area from Baluchistan was conveyed to the Khan, he protested against the amended decision. The Khan was informed that the question was not definitely settled, as in April 1873, the Iranian government had refused to accept the

note. It does not appear to have been necessary to take any further account of his objections. In the late 19th century, the Iranians practically settled the question of Kohuk by military occupation and continued their policy of expansion in pushing their claim and their raids further and further into the Khanate. In 1896 and 1905, an Anglo-Persian Joint Boundary Commission was appointed to divide Baluchistan between Iran and Britain. During the process of demarcation of the frontier, several areas of the Khanate of Baluchistan were surrendered by the British authorities, who were hoping to please the Iranian government in order to check
the Russian influence in Iran. The frontier imposed by two alien powers on the Baluch people was demarcated without the consent of Kalat. The agreement of 1896 was a clear violation of the treaties of (the agreement) 1854 and 1876, declaring the Perso-Baluch line to be the frontier of Iran and India. It is interesting to note that the border demarcated by General Gold-smid was between the independent Khanate and Iran. The agreements of 1896 and 19O5 show a clear shift in British policy towards the Khanate; it was treated now as an Indian state. Under the treaty of 19O5, the Khanate lost the territory Of Mir Jawa and in return the Iranian government agreed that this frontier should be regarded as definitely settled in accordance with the agreement of 1896 and that no further claim should be made in respect of it. In 1872, the British government appointed General Goldsmid to settle the dispute over Seistan between Iran and Afghanistan. The dispute, however, was ended with the partition of Seistan between Iran and Afghanistan without the consent of the Baluch people. Ethnically, culturally, and geographically, Seistan is part of Baluchistan. Seistan ruled by Sanjrani chiefs was the vassal of the Khanate until 1882. A secret diary prepared by the British representative at Kalat on April 2o, 1872, to the British Government of India suggests that Sardar Ibrahim Khan Sanjrani of Chakansur (Seistan) acted as a vassal of the Khanate. Sir Robert Sandeman, in the letters to Lord Curzon dated November 22, 1891 and January 12, 1892, described the western limits of the Khanate as Hassanabad Q (Irani-Seistan) and the Halmand river near Rudbar. The final demarcation of Seistan took place in 19O4 by the British Commissioner, Sir McMahon, but the historical right of the Khanate and the principle of the right to self-determination were ignored. Sanjrani, chief of Chakansur, refused to acknowledge the Afghan rule under Amif Abdul Rahman. Nonetheless, the Kabul policy of British India encouraged Abdul Rahman to occupy the country. Nothing is known about the reaction of Mir Khudadad Khan, the ruler of Baluchistan.

The Baluch-Afghan or MoMahon Line: This covers an area from New Chaman to the Perso-Baluch border. The boundary was demarcated by the Indo-Afghan Boundary Commission headed by Capt. (later Sir) A. Henry McMahon in 1896. The boundary runs through the Baluch country, dividing one family from another and one tribe from another. As in the demarcation of the Perso-Baluch Frontier, the Khan was not consulted by the British, making the validity of the line doubtful, because:
1. The Goldsmid Line (the southern part of the Perso-Baluch Frontier) was imposed on the Khan by the British Government in 1871.
2. In 1896, when the rest of the Perso-Baluch Frontier was demarcated, the Khan ate, an independent state, was not consulted.
3. The partition of Seistan was unjust because Seistan was autonomous and the majority of the population, which was Baluch, recognized the Khan as their suzerain. The Sanjrani chief of Chakansur (Seistan) refused to accept Afghan rule in 1882.
4. The British reports clearly suggest that the Baluch people resented the rule of Iran and desired to accept, the status of a British protectorate against Iranian rule.
5. The partition of Baluchistan took place without taking into consideration the
4 factors of geography, culture, history, and the will of the people. However, the final outcome of the boundary settlements imposed on the Baluch was:
1. Seistan and Western Makran, Sarhad, etc. became part of Iran.
2. Outer Seistan and Registan came under the control of Afghanistan.
3. Jacobabad, Derajat and Sibi were included in British India.
4. The Khanate of Baluchistan was recognized as an independent state with status of a protectorate.

Nevertheless, Baluch tribes in the 19th century and at the beginning of the 20th century showed their hatred of the unnatural and unjust partition through their revolts against British and Persian rule. Gul Khan, a nationalist writer, wrote: "Due to the decisions of (boundary) Commissions more than half of the territory of Baluchistan came under the possession of Iran and less than half of it was given to Afghanistan. The factor for the division of a lordless Baluchistan was to please and control Iran and Afghanistan governments against Russia" in favour of Britain. In 1932, the Baluch Conference of Jacobabad voiced itself

against the Iranian occupation of Western Baluchistan. in 1933, Mir Abdul 'Aziz Kurd, a prominent national leader of Baluchistan, showed his opposition to the partition and division of Baluchistan by publishing the first map of Greater Baluchistan. In 1934, Magassi, the head of the Baluch national movement, suggested an armed struggle for the liberation and unification of Baluchistan. However, it was a difficult task because of its division into several parts, each part with a different constitutional and political status

Partition of Balochistan
"Divide And Rule" A famous quote of the Oppressors

Baluch nationalism, since its birth, has faced the problem of "International" frontiers which divide the Baluch among countries -- Pakistan, Iran, and Afghanistan. The genesis of the problem pre-dates the Perso-Baluch (1871 and 1895-1905), Seistan (1872-1896), and Baluch-Afghan (1895) frontiers. The demarcation of these frontiers made the problem more acute and protracted it so that, with the rise of Baluch nationalism in 1930, the Baluch were divided between Iran, Afghanistan, and what was the British India.

For obvious reasons, Pakistan and Iran had a common interest in suppressing the Baluch claim of self-determination and they have adopted a joint policy for this purpose. Afghanistan did not share the Iranian and the Pakistan policies but stated its own claim for Baluchistan, as part of its demand for Pushtunistan. The Baluch-Afghan line as an internaional border is disputed by the Afghans, who regard the frontier with Pakistan as drawn by the British and agreed to by the Afghans only under duress.

To understand the complexity of the issue involved in the division of Baluchistan, it is important to have some understanding of the historical circumstances involved. The strategic position of Baluchistan, Iran, and Afghanistan in terms of commanding the principal trade routes between South-West Asia, Central Asia, and South Asia became important for Britain and Russia in the context of the geopolitical expansion of the two empires in Asia during the 19th century and the begining of the 20th.

In 1854, Britain entered into a treaty with the Khan, ruler of Baluchistan, in order to defend its territories against an external invasion from Central Asia, and Iran. At the same time the Iranian rulers, who had lost their northern provinces to the Russians, pursued a policy of expansion towards Baluchistan in order to compensate for the lost areas. However, in 1870, the British Government agreed to demarcate the border with the Khanate of Baluchistan, In 1871, the British Government accepted the Iranian proposal and appointed Maj. General Goldsmid as Chief Commissioner of the joint Perso-Baluch Boundry Commission. Iran was represented by Mirza Ibrahim, and the Khanate of Baluchistan was represented by Sardar Faqir Muhammad Bizenjo, the Governor of Makran.

The Baluch delegate submitted a claim for Western Baluchistan and Iranians claimed most of Makran including Kohuk. After several months of negotiations, Goldsmid divided Baluchistan into two parts without taking into consideration, history, geography, culture or religion, and ignoring the statements of Baluch chiefs, who regarded themselves as subjects of the Khan. Goldsmid's decision was based on political considerations. He aimed to please Iran in order to keep Iran away from Russia.

Source: The Problem of Greater Balochistan, written by: Innayatullah Baloch 		 
The Baloch are the indigenous people of Balochistan  
  Unlike the universally agreed and long-established historical facts about the characteristics of the Baloch, the actual origin of the Baloch remains a matter of debate. Where did the Baloch come from? , or they did not! Research scholars have different opinions and theories about the origin of the Baloch. Lets outline the three serious existing theories about the origin of the Baloch:  
1-The Baloch came from the Caspian Sea region  
  The Baloch came from the Caspian Sea region:

Some say they belong to the northern regions of Elburz and east of Caspian Sea, now inhabited by Ashkanis, originally Aryans. They believe that the Baloch and the Kurds are of Aryan origin and the true Iranian. Although scholars such as Sir Richard Burton and Professor Keane were of the same opinion, this theory is more acceptable to the Persian for some reasons. They refer to the Balochi language as a very strong evidence for their claim. Moreover, people of Baloch origin who speak Baloch still live in Turkamenstan and around that area. The opponents of this theory believe that those Baloch have migrated from Balochistan more recently than it could be attributed to the migration of Baloch. They claim that the first Baloch migration from the Caspian See region, most probably around 1200 B.C., must have been motivated by this general historical phenomenon. They first settled in northern Persia. They cling to the authority of Persian poet, Firdousi (935-1020 A.D.) and also strong historical evidences that the Baloch were a political and military force during the times of Cyrus and Combyses. However, the Baloch movement from Kirman and Seisran to Makoran and then Eastern Balochistan was not the only result of the lack of sufficient productive forces to meet their demands, or insufficient grazing fields for their flocks, because the area they migrated to was no better in natural resources than the area in which they had been settled for centuries. The main reason was their conflict with rulers and their own internal enmity which resulted in a weakening of their political position. yet another factor most probably was the Mongolian invasion of Central Asia and the subsequent political anarchy in the whole region.		  
2-The Baloch are the indigenous people of Balochistan  
  The Baloch are the indigenous people of Balochistan : Some researchers hold the opinion that the Baloch are the original cave-dewellers and hunters of Balochistan who created the first civilisation of the World aound Mehergarh. They regard the Baloch as the remnants of indigenous population of the area. They refer to the fact that the Baloch are neither related to the Persian nor to the Punjabis or Pathans, while at the same time they have racial and linguistic affinity to both sides. These theory is supported by Baloch Nationalists for obvious reasons.  
3-The Baloch came from Halab (Allepe)  
  Some historians maintain that they came from Halab, Allepe, and are Semites. It is also believed that they from the old stock of Sumerians of Mesopotamia. The historians, however, mostly concern themselves in tracing the Baloch racical origin either from among the Indo-Europeans or the Semites. Neither should one object on these methods for historical research, nor doubt the fact that there had been an admixture of various people with Baloch like the Scythians, Pathians, Ashkanis, Sakas, Kushans, Huns, Turks and many others; nor contest the proposition that Baloch, culturally, were greatly influenced by Tigris-Euphrates civilization at different stages of history. Subscribers to this school of thought believe that the Baloch and Kurds were two large tribes of common origin. For whatever reasons, the Kurds decided to move towards the East by hundereds of kilometers only, while the Baloch moved thousands of kilometers eastward. This theory might prove the most accurate. Apart from historical evidence and academic debates, there are certain sceintific markers which makes this theory more plausible than the other two. These sceintific markers are the prevelance of certain genetic diseases such as Glucose 6 Phosphate Dehydrogenase Deficiency ( Favism) and Thalaseamia. According to the World Health Organisation (WHO) The Baloch have the same occurance rate as the Kurds, Iraqis, original Syrians and the Khuzestanis of Iran. The occurance rate of the Baloch is very different from Punjabis, Sindis and Pathans. Surely science can shed some lights where history fails to illuminate  
Today, there have been 9 visitors (13 hits) on this page!
The Origin of word "Baloch" "The origin of the word 'Baloch' is still unknown. E. Herzefeld believes that it is derived from brza-vaciya, which came from brza-vak, a Median word meaning a loud cry, in contrast to namravak, quiet, polite way of talking. Some writers maintain that the Baloch owe their name to Babyloian King 'Belus', also the name of their God. It is also believed that the word is anick-name meaning a `cock's comg`. As the Baloch forces who fought against Astyages (585-550 B.C.) wore distinctive helmets decorated with a cock's comb, the name `Baloch' is said to have been derived from the token of cock. Some writers believe that etymologically it is made of two Sankrit words, `Bal` and `Och`. `Bal` means strength or power, and `Och`, high or magnificent. The word `Baloch' therefore, means very powerful and magnificent. Yet another erroneous version is that Baloch mean `nomad` or `wanderer`. This has been presumed perhaps due to the innocent use of the word for nomadic people, and may be because of the fact that the term may be used by indigenous settlers for the Baloch nomads. From the evidences available, it is establiched that by the beginning of the Christian era, the Baloch were one of the major people inhabiting Iranian Balochistan, Seistan and Kirman. Their migration further east into Makkuran must also be the result of Anushervan's (531-578 A.D.) attack on them. But according to some Iegends, it was at a later stage and was the result of a quarrel between the Kirman ruler and the Baloch Chief who was the successor to the most powerful leader, Ismael Romi. The former demanded forty-four girls, one from each Baloch tribe, for his harem. The Baloch dressed up boys in girls' disguise and, fearing the wrath of the ruler, migrated from Kirman and took refuge in Makkuran (Makoran This website was created for free with Own-Free-Website.com. Would you also like to have your own website?
Sign up for free