Islamabad: Federal Minister for Commerce Jam Kamal Khan has emphasized the importance of grounding discussions about Lasbela’s historical status in authentic historical records and official documentation, rather than relying on current administrative boundaries.

According to Press Information Department, the Minister, in a detailed post on X, highlighted that Lasbela has a unique political and administrative history. It emerged as a separate ruling entity in the eighteenth century and was under the Jam dynasty until its integration into Pakistan’s administrative framework post-independence. He noted that the current Province of Balochistan did not historically exist in its present form but was composed of several distinct entities, including the Khanate of Kalat and the princely states of Lasbela, Kharan, and Makran, alongside British-administered territories.

Jam Kamal Khan elaborated on the changing political and territorial arrangements between Lasbela and Kalat, emphasizing that Lasbela functioned as a separate princely state. During the British period, Kalat, Lasbela, Makran, and Kharan were treated as separate princely states, with British authority expanding through treaties and agreements rather than outright takeover.

Citing developments post-Treaty of Gandamak in 1879, he mentioned that areas such as Quetta and Pishin came under British control, with separate governance arrangements for other territories. He stressed the historical inaccuracy of assuming that contemporary provincial maps reflect historical boundaries.

After independence, Lasbela retained its separate identity before becoming part of the Baluchistan States Union in 1952 and later the One Unit scheme in 1955. It was then combined with Karachi to form the Karachi-Bela Division in 1960 before being returned to Kalat Division in 1972.

Discussing Ormara, Khan highlighted its historical association with Lasbela and the competing claims concerning its governance. He reiterated that Balochistan Province emerged through the integration of historically distinct territories, emphasizing the need for historical debates to reflect documented facts and the region’s true historical significance, rather than imposing contemporary boundaries onto the past.