Should Pakistan Honor the Lahore Resolution?

CONFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN?

The following letter calls for a new constitution and a confederation of Pakistan. Confederation? Does he mean a federation?

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

Dawn, Letter, January 28, 2001
``Altaf`s demand

I have never had anything to do with either faction of the MQM. But I support the latest demand of Mutahida Qaumi Movement, led by Altaf Hussain, for a new constitution.

I believe that this is the most appropriate time to frame a new constitution for a future confederation of Pakistan. The new constitution must enshrine the right to secede peacefully for all the states comprising the new confederation. I believe that only the formation of a confederation will break the back of the inept, arrogant, short-sighted and often times treacherous Islamabad power elite.

JAMIL D. DADABHOY, Karachi``

LAHORE RESOLUTION, FEDERALISM, AND LOCAL/REGIONAL INTERESTS

According to the following news clipping (Nation, January 18, 2000), the MQM has quit the Alliance for the Restoration of Democracy in Pakistan. This piece needs to be analyzed critically based upon the 53 year long history of politics in Pakistan (in light of the contents of the Lahore Resolution).

We need to ask:

(1) Why has the MQM decided to take such a stand? Is it motivated by a covert deal between the MQM and the military establishment (particularly General Musharraf and General Haider)? How is this decision linked with the MQM’s membership (?) in the PONAM?

(2) What would be the implication of this decision, and the MQM’s stand, on the politics of Sindh?

(3) How important is the MQM for the PML (N) and/or the PPP? Would these parties take some measures to mollify the MQM’s position and, thus, gain support?

(4) Why are the ANP and the PPP so much bent upon protecting a constitution that has been virtually desecrated by the current military regime? Why is a new constitution so necessary?

(5) What is a federation/federalism? Is this concept contest-free? Are there more than one discourses? If yes, how do they differ and why?

(6) Any additional question or comment.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

“MQM quits ARD
From Our Correspondent

KARACHI –The Muttahida Qaumi Movement has quit the ARD after the latter’s leadership and its member parties rejected their demands for a new Constitution Commission, to determine the responsible for extra-judicial killings and apology from PML (N) and PPP on the killings of MQM’s workers.

The Altaf-led party had demanded of ARD to struggle for a new Constituent Assembly under a new Constitution in which four provinces should have equal representation.
Talking to The Nation, Sheikh Liaquat Hussain, Parliamentary Party leader of MQM, explained that his party never demanded confederation. Rather, we demand the federal system under which the centre has only three portfolios: Foreign, Currency and Defence.
To a question, he said that Quaid-i-Azam also had talked of such federation. He referred that father of the nation being the president of the Constituent Assembly addressed the assembly in 1948 and elaborated the concept of such federation.
He said that they do not believe in 1973 Constitution but they want a new Constitution to be formulated in accordance with the 1940 Resolution. MQM wants implementation in the spirit of that historic Resolution.

‘Under present Constitution, Punjab has majority in the Parliament of 217 members with its 115 members. The smaller provinces cannot be satisfied with present arrangements’, he explained.

He said that MQM had demanded the constitution of a Commission to determine the action against those responsible for the extra-judicial killings of its workers during PPP and PML (N) governments and ascertain those police, rangers and establishment’s people involved in such cases.

Sheikh said that neither ARD accepted the demand for new Constitution nor the PPP and PML (N) apologised for extra-judicial killings so we would not continue with them.
It is relevant to add here that ARD Chief, Nawabzada Nasrullah Khan has said that MQM had signed the joint declaration of ARD in which MQM, like other component parties, also had pledged to the people of Pakistan to uphold the supremacy of the 1973 Constitution.
However, Shaikh Liaquat Hussain, clarified in exclusive chat with this reporter that Aftab Sheikh signed the declaration in good faith and it was not though that they would hoodwink us.

Interestingly, the differences between ARD and MQM have sparked off a new war of words. Javed Hashmi of PML (N) alleged that MQM was trying to avoid its participation in the movement to be launched by the ARD against the government. PPP alleged that MQM had reached a covert deal with the military government so it was looking for pretexts to abandon the ARD.

MQM leaders accused ARD of having been establishment’s ploy. Tariq Javed expressed concern on dubbing those as anti-state elements who demanded provincial autonomy. MQM also criticised Asfandyar Wali for his opposition to MQM’s demands.”

LAHORE RESOLUTION INSULTED?

In the following letter to the Editor, Ghani Brohi argues that Syed Khursheed Ahmad Shah of PPP has insulted the Pakistan Resolution of 1940. To find out the veracity of his argument, please read as under. Comments welcome.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

Dawn, Letter, January 17, 2001
“Misinterpretation of 1940 Resolution

I was surprised to read the statement of Syed Khursheed Ahmed Shah that Altaf Hussain`s demand for implementation of Pakistan Resolution would amount to dividing the country into four independent states (Dawn Jan 11). I fail to understand whether the statement was issued for the sake of opposing Mr Hussain`s demand or pleasing some agencies.

From 1940 to 1947, Muslims of the undivided India struggled to give physical shape to the resolution. In this exercise thousands of people were killed and millions uprooted. Although the resolution was never implemented in Pakistan even for a day, Pakistan was reduced to half in less than 25 years after independence.

If Pakistan Resolution was to become invalid after independence, one can assume it was only passed to lure Muslims of the undivided India to vote for Pakistan, not independence.

This country has been ruled ruthlessly at whims by individuals, both under the civilian and army rule, with the result that the people suffered, institutions suffered and the country suffered.

By opposing Pakistan Resolution Mr Shah has insulted all those who had drafted, supported and passed this resolution in 1940.

GHANI BROHI
Hyderabad``

Dawn, January 11, 2001
“PPP criticizes MQM`s demand
By Our Correspondent

SUKKUR, Jan 10: The deputy opposition leader in the suspended National Assembly, Syed Khurshid Ahmed Shah, said on Wednesday that MQM chief Altaf Hussain`s demand to implement the 1940 Resolution would amount to dividing the country into four independent states, which, he added, was not acceptable to the people.

The recent statement of Mr Hussain represented an idea of four independent states and the Pakistan People`s Party would oppose it, he said, speaking at an Eid Millan party here.

He said the 1973 Constitution had been framed with the consensus of all political parties of that time, and added that if it was revoked, not even seven generations would be able to frame it again unanimously.

Mr Shah stated that the PPP favoured granting greater autonomy to all the provinces of the country within the frame work of the constitution. ``We are ready to sit together with the parties of the country to decide and provide greater provincial autonomy without damaging the solidarity and the integrity of the country.``

The PPP leader called upon all the political parties to launch a joint struggle for the restoration of democracy. Former MPA Ghulam Qadir Bhutto and Syed Kazim Ali Shah also spoke.”

TO ALL CHOWKWALLAS

Kindly abstain from posting irrelevant material on this board. This is just a friendly appeal. Thanks.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

Mateen #509

Do you know why Resignation was taken from Javed Jabbar.

I did not know. But after seeing the current Masharraf Nama and Fauj Nama I realize it.

I did not know why Army is so interested in politics. After seeing the statement of Government spokesman on division of Muslim League I know.

I did not know army is so corrupt (anything coming out of pen of Kamran Khan has substance. Where is he by the way?) since for the last 53 years army has ransacked the wishes the people of Pakistan on charges of corruption.

Do you realize, you are demanding the respect of an institution which has earned every medal to be loathed.

Whether it is involvement of army officers in raping and killing their own people or invading constitution to the point that Army general said that constitution is a thirteen page book which I can tear anytime, to the one sided ethnic exercise of elimination of corruption.

Do you think people buy your logic because you look more intellectual.

The ground realities which we perceive everyday is much louder than all the rhetoric.

Tell me when the army is going to leave people of Pakistan.

Ab Jaan Baksh Do. People have already realized this and are leaving the country in droves.

Fairdinkum, Bilal,

A.O.A.

My apologies for this delayed response to your posts # 94 & 95.

I think it has been amply brought out at various forums in Pakistan and abroad, that there is nothing ‘untransparent’ about Pakistan Armed Forces functioning. Like any big organization, be it Pakistani or an MNC, the internal working and strategy (which includes the modus operandi of exponential expenditures, long-range security/corporate related planning and structuring), there has to be a major behind-the-scenes i.e. out of public domain, decision-making.

Why should the Pakistan Armed Forces, particularly the Army, be called upon to be ‘transparent’ in this? The system in vogue in the USA, is not replicated anywhere else in the World. Even in France or UK or Germany. Yes, their Parliament/Congress etc, do have access to the military expenditures through their respective Defence Subcommittees and/or Appropriations Bills. We do have a selective procedure, I agree, but one which is very much in line with the level of our august bodies!

By the way, “being accountable to the people of Pakistan” is not the same as being ``maligned``. The ‘learned’ representatives of the People of Pakistan have been getting lots of remuneration for staff, offices, access to strategic and related information, lots of feedback, and opportunities galore to be a wee bit more educated on the security concerns. Unfortunately, they have been peculiarly inclined towards more mundane and earthy pursuits, if at all they have deigned to appear in the House that they were paid to ‘adorn’. The two-some, Leaderene and Mandated Leader, encouraged this lack of knowledge in their party persons – but I must acknowledge, the Leaderene did have more intellect, if lacking in moral fiber.

Fairdinkum,

I do not recall using the term “unpatriotic” in my posts. Jumping to unconscious conclusions?!

The last point: expatriates being away from home and to “make up their own minds” are, in my opinion, pretty much susceptible to what they are fed and what they glean from surfing the net editions of our papers, relying on the available channels (CNN, BBC, the weeklies et al). Maybe I can stand correction in my assertion that ‘field’ knowledge (hands-on, being here and now) is what counts.

I stand by my conclusions that expatriates are doing a lot for the ‘motherland’, but maybe the ‘motherland’ could use a bit more understanding and more truthful images.

Bilal,

I have no comments on Brig (R) A.R.Siddiqi’s article/views and PIMA. It is a bundle of confused contradictions (as you also inferred).

Your #492.

My comments:

A. Pakistan’s core problem, which you and many others have very ably identified, remains the ethnic-nationalist-regional diversities. HAZIR’s statement makes sense, but is not entirely factual. There is certainly room for debate on whether ‘Punjab’ is truly ‘Punjabi’; or ‘NWFP’ is ‘Pathan/Pakhtun’, whatever. I personally think that creation of additional provinces/divisions (call it anything), is being

made an issue by the so-called ‘leaders’. Left to the will of the people, they would rather have the

governance/administration nearer their homes. (That is why power to the local government is so central to the ‘Devolution Plan’)

B. There is more shouting than any real issue on the question of ‘provincial autonomy’. The immense wastage of resources, the dubious advantages of quota system, the wanton disregard for national interests, the bloated expenditures for the cause of ‘provincial autonomy’, are all sufficient reasons to accept HAZIR’s view that this would empower local elite (it does) and not the citizens.

C. The immigrants of 1947-56 or so have long been absorbed in the various places they settled in. Do you know that in MULTAN, for example, only about 15% of the population is actually local? The rest are from all over the neighbourhood: Pakistani-Afghanis, -Persians, -Indians, -Central Asian etc, and Pathan/Baloch. Haven’t we been discussing the points brought out by HAZIR, to wits’ end?!

D. I sincerely feel that most of what he has brought out, and his recommendations/revision map of the Provinces/Divisions, must be given serious consideration and acted upon, (HAZIR is not the first to suggest this ‘divisioning’) I would also suggest that the classic perception/pattern of ‘provincial deprivation’ or ‘non-development’ (a la MEMON’s lament that you have quoted, or what has again been reiterated by IMTIAZ ALAM, “Challenges to Federalism”, ‘The News’ 17th November), is unjustified jingoism and meant to create unwanted turbulence, confusion and unsubstantiated fears.

Fairdinkum #501

Pakistan IS – what is this semantic balancing act, “nation-state/state-nation”?!

Pakistan is not “a State in search of Nationhood” (you are quoting Christina Lamb, ‘Waiting For Allah’).

It is a resolute Nation, a State that exists, will prosper and flourish.

But, I agree, the contractual obligations of the various governments, have been remiss to an unacceptable extreme.

Regards,

Mateen

SINDHI NATIONALISM

Ali Nawaz Memon (1997: 195) writes:

“Educated children of rural Sindhis have establihsed several nationalist organizations. They have tied rights of rural Sindhis to autonomy of Sindh. The later issue has been viewed suspiciously by the central government and armed forces. These organizations may have better luck if they were to concentrate on the economic rights of the rural areas.”

Comment: Urban and rural parts of Sindh have long been artificially divided, where in reality they both need each other for their mutual survival. This conventional wisdom has long been a part of geography and regional planning literature developed in the West. Studies in several Asian countries also confirm the existence of such a relationship, as a part of our long historical legacy.

Any movement for autonomy will normally fail, as long as the rural and urban components (and various political movements in them) fail to understand their mutual complementarity. However, I agree with Memon’s implication that a nationalist movement has much greater chance of being crushed than a movement for the rights of people–particularly the economic and social rights.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

BAhmed # On many posts.

Thanks for continuing to put things in perspective with references and continuing to educate us.

SIND ASSEMBLY’S PAKISTAN RESOLUTION

On March 3, 1943, Saeen G. M. Syed moved the following resolution in Sind Legislative Assembly:

“The house recommends to the Government to convey to His Majesty’s Government through His Excellency the Viceroy the sentiments and wishes of the Muslims of this Province that whereas the Muslims of India are a separate nation possessing religion, philosophy, social customs, literature, traditions and political and economic theories of their own quite different from those of the Hindus, they are justly entitled to the right of a single separate nation to have independent national states of their own carved out in the zones where they are in majority in the subcontinent of India.

Wherefore, they emphatically declare that no constitution shall be acceptable to them that will place the Muslims under a Central Government dominated by another nation, as in order to be able to play their part freely on their own distinct lines in the order of things to come, it is necessary for them to have independent national States of their own and hence any attempt to subject the Muslims of India under one Central Government is bound to result in civil war with grave unhappy consequences” (Quoted in Pirzada, 1995: 172).

This resolution passed: 24 votes in favor, 3 against (total votes = 27) Only four days after the passage of this resolution, the Council of the All-India Muslim League at its Delhi meeting of March 7 1943 approbated the resolution in the following words:

“This meeting of the Council of the All India Muslim League approves of the decisions of Sindh Provincial Legislative Assembly in endorsing the principles of Pakistan Scheme adopted by the Lahore Resolution of the All India Muslim League on 23 March 1940 and feels confident that before long the other Muslim majority provinces will follow suit” (Quoted in Pirzada, 1995: 175).
Comment: Please remember that Sindh was the first province to pass a resolution in favor of Pakistan. The, read carefully. The Sind Assembly resolution calls for “independent national States” of the Muslims, and the Council of AIML reiterates its support of the Lahore Resolution which initially called for “autonomous and sovereign” independent states. So, what happened between March 7 of 1943 and April 9 of 1946, that led the Muslim League high command to call for only one state (not many states). This single state became a reality on August 14, 1947. But, we know the rest of the story. . . . Did Jinnah and the Pakistani ruling elite after him (to use Ali Nawaz Memon’s expression) “betray” the Sindhis? If yes, why? If no, why not?

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

WOULD MUSHRRAF LISTEN TO THE PONAM?
IS PONAM REALISTIC? IS PONAM REALLY SERIOUS?
WHAT IS THE ELECTORAL SUPPORT BASE OF PONAM?
WOULD MUSHARRAF INTERNALIZE SOME DEMANDS OF PONAM TO INDIRECTLY KILL THIS MOVEMENT?

Ponam seeks transfer of power to caretaker govt
From our correspondent
Khaleej Times, November 15, 2000

PESHAWAR - The Supreme Council of Pakistan Oppressed Nationalities Movement (Ponam) has demanded that power be transferred to a caretaker government comprising those judges of the Supreme Court who refused to take oath under the Provisional Constitution Order (PCO).

It said the proposed caretaker government should hold elections for a legislative assembly within three months.

The council which met here on Monday night under the chairmanship of its acting convenor Mohammad Afzal Khan rejected the government`s plan for devolution of power and local bodies elections describing it as a direct interference in affairs of provinces.

The meeting which continued till early yesterday morning was attended by, among others, Dr Abdul Hayee Baloch of Balochistan National Movement, Dr Qadir Magsi of Sindh Taraqqi Pasand Party, Taj Mohammad Langah of Saraiki National Party and Abdul Rahim Mandokhel of Pakhtoonkhwa Milli Awami Party. Mr Afzal Khan told newsmen after the meeting that the council urged the government to stop implementation of the devolution plan to save the country from new problems and crisis.
The council, he said, stressed the need for immediate steps for restoration of democracy, including the transfer of power to a caretaker government only for supervising elections.
The council said in a resolution that military government had failed in running affairs of the country efficiently and the situation would worsen if continued in power for any longer period.

Mr Afzal Khan said that if the government sincerely wanted devolution of power then it should give full autonomy to the provinces and leave it to them to decide what power and responsibilities should be given to districts and other local bodies.

The Ponam council also criticised the government`s policies regarding decentralisation, down- sizing and rightsizing. These policies, it said, were bound to create unrest in the country.
The council also expressed dissatisfaction over the ongoing accountability process and termed it political victimisation. It alleged that one or two provinces had been made the main target of accountability and, therefore, the process could not be called fair and transparent.

It demanded that the process of accountability must also cover corrupt generals, judges and journalists. Answering a question, Mr Afzal Khan said that Ponam believed that the 1973 constitution had failed in establishing a `true federation`. Besides, the constitution had been drastically changed by more than a dozen amendments.

The council called for a new constituent assembly to frame a new constitution ensuring maximum rights, powers, independence and autonomy to the federating units.

PIRZADA ON SENIOR BHUTTO’S ROLE

D. A. Pirzada writes (see my Reply # 503):

“The Royal Simon Commisson was appointed which began its sittings on 12 November 1928 in Karachi to hear the case regarding the Sindh’s separation. The Commission was assisted by a Provincial Committee comprising of Sir Shah Nawaz Bhutto, member of the Governor’s Executive Council and Syed Miran Mohamed Shah, member of the Bombay Legislative Council from Hyderabad Sindh. The Muslim case for separation of Sindh was put forward by the delegation of Sindh Mohammadan Association headed by Khuhro. They stressed upon the Sindh’s separation that “the province of Sindh has absolutely nothing in common with the Bombay Presidency. The union is based neither on ethnological, geographical, linguistic, agricultural nor another sound consideration” (p. 51).”

“The Hindu opposition reinforced the unity in the ranks of Muslim leadership, as a result they formed their own informal organization called the Sindh Azad Conference in September 1932 to provide the platform for the cause of Sindh’s separation. Sir Shah Nawaz Bhutto was appointed Chairman, M. A. Khuhro, Vice Chairman, Abdul Majid Sindhi, Secretary and Abdullah Haroon, Treasurer. It passed the resolution that “deputation be sent to wait upon the Viceroy at Simla to place the strong case for immediate separation of Sindh, and the 16 September be fixed as Sindh Celebration Day all over Sindh.” This formation of an exclusively provincial level organization on the part of the Sindhi Muslim elites provided a basis for Sindhi Muslim strength and unity by bringing together the landed aristocracy and the emergent . . . Muslim middle classes on the single issue platform of separation. They sought to satisfy the Hindu financial doubts . . . . (pp. 57-58).

“The third and last session of Round Table Conference was held in November 1932 in London. It was prepared to concede to the Muslim demand already accepted in the First Round Table Conference during the year 1930, after the financial side of the question was examined by Miles Irving Committee and Barayne Conference. On 24 December 1932 the Secretary of State for India announced the definite decision of the British Government to separate Sindh from Bombay Presidency and establish an independent autonomous Governor’s province in Sindh, and given the place in its new constitution for India, the Government of India Act 1935`` (pp. 58-59).

Pirzada provides some information about Shah Nawaz in connection with the newly formed party–Sindh United Party (pp. 61-63). Then, he briefly talks about the electoral defeats of Shah Nawaz and Abudullah Haroon in February, 1937. Abdual Majid Sindhi defeated Shah Nawaz in his Larkana stronghold by enlisting the support of Shah Nawaz’s two cousins, Sardar Nabi Bakh and Khan Bahadur Ahmed Khan (pp.69-70). Finally, Pirzada talks briefly about the tension between Shah Nawaz and Sir Ghulam Hussain Hidayatullah (pp. 71-72).

Final comment: Is the rivalry between Mumtaz Bhutto and Benazir rooted in the past, particularly in the defeat of Shah Nawaz Bhutto in 1937 election. Fairdinkum, could you tell us more about Nabi Baksh and Ahmad Khan? Why did they oppose Shah Nawaz? Is the Bhutto clan`s internal rivalry more deeply rooted?

In my next post, I will once again shift attention toward G. M. Syed to highlight his role in the creation of Pakistan vis a vis Lahore Resolution.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

In response to Fairdinkum (Reply # 501)
Dear Fairdinkum:

A great post! In my current post, I will identify a few sources of information that cast light on the role of Sir Shah Nawaz Bhutto in the separation of Sindh from the Bombay Presidency.

The Proceedings of the Indian Round Table Conference were published in nine volumes. I do have in my possession Vol. IX, entitled “Indian Round Table Conference, 12th November, 1930 - 19th January, 1931: The Question of constituting Sind as a separate province,” (Karchi: Indus Publications, 1979). This document (102 + iii pages) does indeed show that Shah Nawaz was a member of the Subcommittee. This document has each and every word uttered by various members of the Subcommittee, including Shah Nawaz. This document establishes that A. F. Shaikh has blown the issue of Shah Nawaz’s initial opposition out of proportion (see my Replies # 482 and 484). I am surprised that the Dawn published this letter, but you know . . . .

Dr. Hameed Khuro, who was senior colleague of mine at the University of Karachi (we never met personally), has compiled documents concerning the Separation in her Khuro, H. (ed.). “Documents on Separation of Sind from Bombay Presidency.” Islamabad: Islamic University. Hameeda has recently published a biography of her father Mohammad Ayub Khuro, well-known Sindhi politician.

I have found another useful source: Pirzada, D. A. (1995). “Growth of Muslim Nationalism in Sindh: Parting Ways to Pakistan.” Karachi: Mehran Publishers. Chapter IV deals with the Separation of Sindh Movement (pp. 40-75). In my next post, I will quote a few excerpts from this source to highlight the role of Shahnawaz.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

P.S. Rashid, I apologize for several typos in my Reply # 500.

PS. Sorry about so many typos in my last post.

Dear Bilal and Krashid,

My unusually tight schedule has not permitted me to contribute to what I believe is a very interesting discussion on this board.

Let me start by some thoughts on Sir Shah Nawaz Bhutto. Whereas the role played by people like Mr. G M Syed and other leaders of Muslim Sindhi origin in relation to separation of Sindh from Bombay is well know, Shah Nawaz Bhutto’s role is somewhat controversial to say the least. He certainly did not support Muslim league initially, and remained loyal to British Raj. Also, he refused to discard his British tile of “Sir” despite requests from prominent Sindhi political leaders of that time.

At any rate, it is indeed surprising that BB/PPP is claiming that Shah Nawaz Bhutto was instrumental in the separation of Sindh from Bombay. My understanding is that he joined in when it became imminent that it was going to happen anyway.

The question of whether regional/cultural identities of Sindhis, Baluchis, Pathans, Punjabis and Mohajirs are real or mythical is an interesting one. However, given the 54 years of political history of Pakistan, the question we should be asking is whether or not Pakistan is (or aspires to be) a “nation state”? Or is “Pakistan” still an unrealized dream of her founding fathers?

Before we go any further, it is important that we distinguished between “nation states” and “state nations” vis-à-vis our point/focus of discussion. In a nation state, there is a legitimate and binding social contract between state and it’s citizens. In return for giving up autonomy/independence in certain aspects of life, citizens of a “nation state” expect to receive certain benefits such as physical, social, and economic security from the state. Therefore, many aspects of an individual’s life are administered, and most of the grievances between individuals and between individuals and state are resolved through institutions erected by the state – for example, the bureaucracy, the Judiciary etc. The functioning of this social contract depends on:

a) The legitimacy of those who assume state power and the degree to which they carry out their part of the social contract.
b) Separation/independence of institutions such as judiciary, and law enforcement agencies from the executive arm of the state… i.e. proper checks and balances to ensure social justice.

The success of this social contract is vital for a nation state to remain viable for its citizens. Civilized countries of the world, which can be described as “nation states”, do ensure that state adheres to its part of the social contract, and proper checks and balances are in place to ensure social justice. In these societies, citizens have a universal sense of nationhood, and an identity matrix, which is relevant and appealing to majority. For example, in many multi-cultural societies, diversity (ethno-linguistic, cultural, religious etc.) is celebrated rather than suppressed. This results in a sense of belonging amongst minorities thereby reducing feelings of alienation/deprivation to a large extent.

Pakistan, in my humble opinion, is a state in search of nationhood, and hence it is a “state nation”. This is quite normal for most ex colonial states. However, what is abnormal in Pakistan is a complete absence of any social contract between state and its citizens. Or it may be that state has breached its part of the contract on so many occasions and with such frequency that it seems that there is no social contract between state and citizens of Pakistan. Also, there seems to be a resolute effort on the part of state to:

a) Keep, and even promote colonial power structures and instruments of power and control i.e. danda-shahi.
b) Consciously promote, follow, and enforce policies of uneven economic development, and disproportionate resource sharing.
c) Conscious policies of discrimination, and preferential treatment on the basis of gender, race, domicile, ethnicity, religious beliefs, and socio-economic background.

Since Pakistan is new country (only 54 years old), search of nationhood, and an identity matrix which may appeal to majority of Pakistanis is quite normal, I do not believe that conscious policies of state of Pakistan i.e. center, to deprive majority of Pakistanis of their basic human and citizenship rights is at all normal. This only indicates that people who assumed power after the creation of Pakistan, and have been ruling Pakistan ever since, are not interested in nation building. Pakistan, as a result, does not aspire to be a “nation state”. On the contrary, it is deteriorating into a society not too dissimilar to Yugoslavia or Somalia. A recent and very disturbing addition to state power structure is religious right, which enjoys a considerable clout in ruling circles nowadays. This group is promoting a dangerous version of history and striving to divide the society along narrow-minded religious lines. Also, a deliberate policy of the state to promote ethnic strife in Sindh is working as a catalyst to render state of Pakistan as irrelevant to majority of Sindhis, and Mohajirs. Even Baluschis, and Pathans feel alienated, and have repeatedly expressed dissatisfaction with current arrangements of the federation.

I therefore conclude that it is the state of Pakistan i.e. center, which should rethink its direction and reconsider its dominant discourse. At present, Pakistan remains an unrealized dream of its founding fathers. And dissatisfation expressed by Sindhis, Baluchis, Pathans, and Mohajirs are justified.

In response to krashid (Reply # 499)
Dear Rashid:

I am well aware of both Chakiwara and Lyari areas. I wonder if the ethnic make-up of these areas has changed significantly during the past 25 years or so.

I wonder if I could agree with you that employment opportunities for the Pakistanis in the Middle-East were essentially a contribution of Bhutto. I also wonder what you mean by universal education, in this particular context.

The hanging of Zulfikar Bhutto was a cruel act. It tells us something about our politics and our people. From Zia’s personal point of view, the death of Bhutto was a necessary precondition for his own survival (and the survival of many more people around him). Do you think that there is some link between Bhutto’s death and the issue of the implementation of Hamoodur Rahman’s report?

The people of Pakistan need to understand the difference between Islam and political Islam. The problem essentially lies in the desire to establish a (truly) Islamic Republic of Pakistan. The middle of the road people are either indifferent or confused. In either case, they themselves have provided tacit consent for the so-called Islamization of Pakistani politics (through their silence or the reluctance to oppose).

Jinnah provided a vision which never suited our powerful ruling elite and which was never used for the powerless people for their own empowerment.

For our national development, we need to a social contract that emphasizes: A democratic-political framework (particularly, state-religion separation; citizenship and human rights; sovereignty of the people; reasonable autonomy and fiscal federalism). Greater self-reliance and austerity. Peaceful coexistence with other nations. Short, medium, and long-term national development goals. Prioritization of human development. Depoliticization of military (no role in politics; military for defense only). Peaceful political resolution of the Jammu and Kashmir problem (with a choice for a free and independent Kashmir). The formation of an Asian Economic Community (SAARC, China, Russia, and others) based on the lines of the European Community.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

Bilal Ahmed #

I have worked in Chakiwara and Liyari area. I can tell you that situation is same everywhere. But the same people are very thankful to Bhutto, who opened some door of opportunity in the form of middle east, universal education etc.

The hanging of Bhutto and usurpation of power by Zia and utter selfishness of PNA alliance made a huge dent in the psyche of people.

Rightist have one point agenda Islam. (although what is meant by it they don`t know themselves). But what about the rest of the middle road or leftist people, where are they. Why don`t they agree on some common ground in the context of Pakistan. Or each group is taking care of its struggle in its own small way.

Or are we a nation of pressure groups playing in the hands of ruling elite.

What can be the minimum point of consensus.