Azam Sultan Suhrwardy
Opponents of President Musharraf say, "Just as Yahya’s military action lost East Pakistan to Pakistan in 1971, so too shall President Musharraf’s military action lose the tribal regions of the Frontier and Balochistan to Pakistan."
The territories of a state are lost by a ruler for a stupid political decision, not on account of military action. Military action is an extension of a stupid political decision.
East Pakistan was actually lost on account of the stupid political decision Yahya made in 1969. It was disbanding One Unit of then West Pakistan without the formation of a Regional Union of the then West Pakistan. As soon as this stupid decision was made, the basis of unity of the then two wings of Pakistan completely vanished.
Why blame Yahya alone? No one else in Pakistan could visualise in 1969 that a regional union of the then western wing of the country was necessary to handle Wapda, railways, energy, gas, petroleum, shipping, and civil aviation, etc., particularly when in the eastern wing of Pakistan, Mujeeb’s election manifesto demanded maximum possible regional autonomy.
The unity of the then two wings of Pakistan would have remained intact had Yahya also held general elections for a Regional West Pakistan Assembly along with the elections of all the other five assemblies.
If elections to a West Pakistan Regional Assembly had been held in 1970, nothing would have been impossible to handle. Subject to certain specified constitutional limitations, the Centre in Pakistan could have been vested the subjects of defence, foreign affairs and currency with all residuary subjects conceded to the two Regional Assemblies.
As to the division of the subjects between the four provinces of the western wing in the Regional Union of the then West Pakistan, it should have been an issue to be exclusively determined by the Regional Assembly of West Pakistan.
Bhutto was not until the fall of Dhaka the majority leader in the Sindh Assembly. He was, according to the election results of December 1970, the majority leader only in the Punjab Assembly. He became majority leader of the Sindh Assembly after he became Chief Martial Law Administrator (CMLA) in 1972.
The Pakistan government claims its dispute is between the Central government of Pakistan and the Sardars, Nawabs and tribal chiefs of Balochistan and the tribal regions of Frontier. It says these Sardars, etc., run their own private jails and their own courts in the areas under their influence, and for their ulterior motives do not want the writ of the state of Pakistan to prevail in their areas.
But President Musharraf has no moral basis to justify any action on the part of his government against the Sardars, Nawabs and tribal chiefs of Balochistan and tribal regions when his government has not so far abolished absentee landlordism from all the areas of the country where the writ of his government prevails one hundred percent. Absentee landlords everywhere in Pakistan do not treat their peasants any different from the Sardars of Balochistan and the chiefs of the Frontier regions.
The Government of Pakistan must understand that it has no moral basis to fight the Sardars, Nawabs and chiefs of the tribal region and of Balochistan unless it first abolishes absentee landlordism in each and every corner of the country under its control.
In the current situation, no one in the whole world believes that Pakistan is sincerely engaged in liberating the masses of the tribal areas and Balochistan from the Sardars, Nawabs and tribal lords. Every one knows absentee landlordism is permissible in Pakistan and that the peasants in all the various areas of the country are treated no differently. To abolish absentee landlordism, the government of President Musharraf neither needs to amend the Constitution, nor does it need to go to the Supreme Court. It has for this purpose to simply invoke the Land Acquisition Act.
Tenants cultivating the lands of absentee landlords need to be provided long term loans by the state from lending institutions to enable them to buy the lands under their tenancies.
All the banks in Pakistan provide long term loans for urban housing. The State Bank and the Government of Pakistan encourages this lending. There is no reason why the financing of tenants to purchase the lands under their tenancy should not be encouraged.
Recently, the Punjab government has used its powers under the Land Acquisition Act to acquire thousands of acres of land belonging to a large number of middle class citizens to establish an industrial estate to benefit an industrial corporation.
A large number of people affected by the above acquisition have filed writ petitions in the Lahore High Court (LHC) to challenge the acquisition of their lands by the Punjab government. The LHC hardly interfered.
If thousands of acres of the lands of middle class citizens can be acquired by the state to aid an industrial corporation, why cannot the agricultural land of absentee landlords be acquired by the state to aid tenants to buy the lands of absentee landlords?
Absentee landlords will then be able to invest in trade, commerce and industries from the proceeds received from the acquisition of their lands. They will be able to earn far more compared to what they currently earn even from their agricultural land holdings farmed by their tenants.
The Government of Pakistan and the Armed Forces happen to be the biggest absentee landlords. All the state lands in their possession will also need to be sold on easy instalments to their tenants.
Without the complete abolition of absentee landlordism, President Musharraf’s government has no moral basis to fight the Sardars, Nawabs and tribal chiefs of the Frontier regions and Balochistan. When there is no moral force behind an act of the state, other powers are bound to intervene in its affairs.
The writer is an Advocate of the Supreme Court of Pakistan and Lahore High Court
http://www.thepost.com.pk/OpinionNews.aspx?dtlid=23907&catid=11 |
