By M.P. Bhandara
IN 1973 there appeared in these columns a seminal essay by my friend, the late Kemal Faruki, advocating 13 provinces in Pakistan based on the then obtaining administrative divisions in the country.
We were recovering from the trauma resulting from the loss of our largest province, East Pakistan. Our then population was about 67 million, about 43 per cent of today’s population estimated at 153 million.
This scheme which was much discussed at the time contained various merits in bringing administration closer to the people and giving recognition to the neglected cultural and linguistic diversity of the peripheral regions. It aimed at redressing the inherent inter-regional imbalance of the polity in which one province has a greater population and financial clout and political weightage than the remaining three provinces put together.
Faruki drew an analogy with Switzerland. German speakers, who constitute 70 per cent of the population, in a deliberate downplay of their prepondence, divided the country into 25 autonomous cantons having equal rights in the confederation; the minority Romanesh-speaking canton totalling 1+ per cent of the population has the same rights and obligations as the rich and heavily populated Zurich canton.
Cantonal equality in the federal assembly dilutes the weightage of numerical superiority. Perhaps the secret of Switzerland holding together its ethnically and religiously diverse German, French, Italian and Romanesh populations for over 400 years lies in this unique political structure. It withstood two world wars when Germany, France and Italy were adversaries.
Faruki’s scheme of things, no matter how tidy they appear on paper, failed to take into account one significant factor - public opinion. A division of Sindh is now unacceptable to any Sindhi son of the soil. The demography of Sindh has been altered beyond all recognition since 1947. Today about half the Sindh population - if not more - consists of the descendants of Mohajirs, Pathans (Karachi hosts the largest Pathan population of any city in the country) and migrants from Punjab, Bangladesh, Burma and Sri Lanka. Understandably, any division of Sindh would raise the hackles of the original Sindhis who have a rich cultural and linguistic tradition and who do not like to be a minority in their own province.
The division of Balochistan between its Baloch and Pathan constituents, the former being the old Kalat division and the latter being the Quetta division, would be welcomed by the Pathan part and possibly acquiesced in by the Baloch. Pashtoon speaking Balochistan would then in all likelihood join the NWFP. This would be cause for concern in Islamabad. Pakistan’s border from north to south-west would run alongside the Pukhtoon areas of Afghanistan. Cross-border Pukhtoon linkages of culture, language and pride are very strong and may spur irredentist claims.
The point to stress is that what is good for Punjab may not necessarily be good for Pakistan. All the ills of Pakistan rightly or wrongly are laid at the door of Punjab. Military rule is said to have its genesis in the army which is predominantly a Punjabi outfit. If Sindh, the lower riparian does not get water, no matter if it be the driest year of the century, a blame game starts with Punjab.
For Baloch nationalists, such as Nawab Mohammad Akbar Khan Bugti, Islamabad is another name for Punjab, which does not pay its due share of gas royalties. The Kalabagh dam is perceived to be Punjab-centric. Damned if we do and damned if we don’t. Punjab is the villain of the piece. Rough, crude, boorish and devious are some of the adjectives used against ’Big Brother’ Punjab in the suburbs of the country.
The logic of this thesis appears to suggest that Punjab needs to lose weight. And the weight to be lost must be unilateral and self-imposed. On discussing this proposal with some mature and seasoned Punjabi politicians, the common refrain is: yes, more provinces are a good idea for Pakistan but it should happen simultaneously in all provinces. This is catching the wrong end of the stick.
It is Punjab which has over 56 per cent of the population, the highest GDP and the largest proportion of the country’s agricultural and industrial wealth. It is Punjab that dominates the Armed forces. And it is the Punjabi political ethos which is the final determinant of our internal and external policies. It is domination of the state by one province which is the cause of much alienation on our peripheries and responsible for the emerging nationalisms.
If this analysis is true, it follows that a trifurcation of Punjab may not be out of place. There are distinct parts: the Saraiki districts of the south, a Lahore province in the centre and a Potohar province in the north would result in six provinces in Pakistan. The Lahore (central) province which would then hold about 37 per cent of the population would still be the largest single province in Pakistan. Apart from the leavening of the estate, there are other reasons which merit our attention:
The old state of Bahawalpur, comprising districts of Bahawalnagar, Rahimyar Khan, Bahawalpur, having a population of around 10 million persons, was guaranteed autonomy and a distinct political entity as a state at the time of partition, when it opted for Pakistan. Historically, right up to 1969 it was never a part of Punjab. It was arbitrarily and unconstitutionally made part of Punjab on the dissolution of One Unit. This was a historic injustice.
Bahawalpur State had a unique culture and a self-contained prosperity in Riasat times of which it has been bereft ever since. The loss has been one of pride and a lower standard of life and self-esteem.
Southern Punjab as a whole, which comprises the old state of Bahawalpur with D.G. Khan, Layyah, Rajanpur, Muzaffargarh, Lodhran and Multan districts, is the much neglected Saraiki belt. As compared to central Punjab, it has very little industry and a per capita income much below that of central Punjab or perhaps even Potohar. Its infrastructure in health, education, communications, industry and business is the lowest in Punjab.
According to the 1998 census, the Saraiki belt had a population of about 19 million persons, roughly 14 per cent of the total population, which makes it marginally bigger than the Frontier province.
An even more important consideration than the charge of neglect is the loss of language and culture. Saraiki and its cognate languages is the language of the Indus Valley civilization. Like French it has a grace and delicate nuance which reflects its ancient civility and unique culture. A culture is ultimately dependent on the material wellbeing and political autonomy of its people. The springs of this great culture will be renewed if southern Punjab obtains a provincial status.
The Potohar represents the hilly districts of northern Punjab where the land is not suitable for agriculture. Traditionally people from these areas have filled the ranks of the armed forces. The districts of Attock, Chakwal, Jhelum and Rawalpindi constitute, according to the 1998 census, about five per cent of Pakistan’s population.
The proposal to give this relatively small region a provincial status is two-fold. One, to whittle down the preponderance of the Lahore province and, more importantly, to spur other regions to seek provincial status. The seeming candidates in this regard may be the Hindko-speaking Hazara district in the NWFP and the Khawar language group in Chitral.
We had earlier referred to the Pashtoon speakers in Balochistan. If it be the desire of the Pashtoons of the NWFP and Balochistan to be one political entity, so be it. Why should it be opposed? So long as Pakistan in the 21st century is willing to recognize that ethnicity and language can be subsumed in the Pakistani ethos, the stronger will be the federation, as is the case with Switzerland.
Unfortunately we have turned our back on this reality; we turned to religion as a binding force. Religion is an internal binding force, but used politically, it leads to religious conflicts and sectarian antagonism. It is a curious coincidence that the Hasba bill passed by the Frontier legislature, has many features in common with a tract ordained in Stalinist Russia: ’How to be a good Communist’. All such ordinances ultimately end up in the garbage can of history.
Our constitutional provisions for altering the territorial composition of a province are extraordinarily tough. Article 239(4) stipulates not only a constitutional bill to alter the limits of a province which requires two-thirds majority in Parliament but for good measure, "the bill shall not be presented to the president for assent unless it has been passed by the provincial assembly of that province by the votes of not less than two-thirds of its total membership".
The constitutional provision makes it very difficult if not impossible practical terms to alter the limits of a province.
In contrast, the Indian constitution (Article 2) does not require the passage of a constitutional bill to alter the limits of a state. A bill for altering the limits of a state may only be introduced "on the recommendation of the president where the proposal.... has been referred by the president to the legislature of that State for expressing its views thereof"....
In other words, a simple majority is required of the legislature of the state so affected by a change and a simple majority in the Indian parliament.
One does not understand why the framers of the 1973 Constitution imposed such draconian conditions for a change in our provincial boundaries. They seemed to have forgotten that change is the only constant of life. Our population has risen from 32.5 million in 1947 to 153 million today - a rise of about 470 per cent, but the provincial command and control systems remain basically unchanged.
Punjab, with a current population of over 87 million, has a larger population than about a 100 sovereign states represented in the UN. Administrative and political devolution in its true sense cannot happen at the district level excepting for local government purposes. To cover a political or cultural identity of a people, it must have a wider horizon.
Given the difficulties of change by constitutional means, a fit case exists to hold a referendum as provided in Article 48(6) of the Constitution. Let the Punjab citizenry as a whole pronounce on the question of a trilateral division of the province. As referendums have a bad history in the country, let this question be put in the 2007 general elections. Only an election can draw voters in large numbers. Whatever be the answer, breaking the logjam will trigger the march of freedom. n
The writer is a member of the National Assembly. E-mail: murbr@isb.paknet.com.pk
http://www.dawn.com/weekly/encounter/encounter1.htm |
