BY: Zafar Ahsan
Ever since the government has raised the Kalabagh issue or launched a military operation in Balochistan, the political pundits are worried about the destructive potential of its policies. Obviously, these kinds of ploys would undermine national unity and integrity. It is the dilemma of our political discourse, where an institutionalized political system does not exist and individuals often play a decisive role in state affairs. The system has always been dominated by the military and civil bureaucracy or dependent on the appearance and disappearance of individuals on the political scene. Our socio-political structure has collapsed because of repeated military interventions and the resultant ’controlled’ democracy, which has infused various kinds of conflicts among provinces, groups and entities.
Its first manifestation became visible right after 24 years of independence, when nationalist sentiments played a crucial role in the confrontation between the Centre and a province. However, the public was misled and the politicians were accused for that deadlock. Afterwards, the whole culpability went into the account of an Indian conspiracy instead of feeling guilty for our own no-responsiveness. Once again the authorities have identified a ’foreign hand’ behind the unrest in Balochistan, but Islamabad is not ready to confess its undemocratic way of handling the issue. Since Sindh has shown resentment on the Kalabagh issue, the government again pointed the finger at nationalist elements for the whole scenario.
Nationalism is deep-rooted in the smaller provinces and non-dominant ethnic entities. The authorities are determined to eliminate these sentiments through the security forces because they have a habit of solving issues through non-democratic means. But very few of us know about the origin of nationalist movements within the state. For instance, if we review the political dynamics of Sindh and its relationship with the Centre, it would reveal a story of marginalization and exploitation of the local communities rather than the romance of a nation-state.
In terms of political activism, Sindh is the most charged province while its indigenous people are the second most marginalized, after the Baloch people. It is another fact that Sindh has the highest per capita income in Pakistan due to the concentration of commerce and industry in its capital Karachi, but unfortunately its rural inhabitants are among the impoverished of the country. This inequality has made Sindh a nursery of various kinds of nationalism, and there exist a variety of groups including separatists, right-wing autonomists, socialists and left-wing activists. An interesting aspect of Sindhi politics is that they have been voting for the Pakistan People’s Party since the first free national elections of 1970, which was predominantly an advocate of federalism. As mentioned earlier, Sindh was one of the most impoverished provinces of Pakistan regardless of its agricultural surplus. However its capital, Karachi, became an important commercial and industrial hub. Due to its infrastructural capacity, Karachi was selected as the capital of the newly-born Pakistan. The town experienced a heavy influx of Urdu-speaking refugees from India. The early response of natives to the refugees was quite sympathetic and emotional. But afterwards, as the demography of the province changed, the economic problems, political disturbance, law and order situation and the fear of subordination or being sidelined came out of the bag. All these were very solid and natural reasons for infusion of ethnic nationalism among indigenous Sindhis.
One of the most irrational decisions of the federal government was the imposition of One Unit on the four provinces of West Pakistan, which undermined the regional identities of various ethnic groups. Pakistan had come into existence with an inconsistent power arrangement - Bengalis formed the majority of Pakistan’s population, but state power was in the hands of the Punjabi-Mohajir alliance.
This was considered the first serious setback to the political process of the country, as the implementation of One Unit required the dissolution of Legislative Assembly on October 4, 1954, along with the provincial governments, which were opposed to the scheme of their replacement. On March 27, 1955, the governor general made changes in the Government of India Act 1935, through an order that authorized him to create the province of West Pakistan, comprising Punjab, Sindh, Frontier and Balochistan. Sindhi reaction to the plan was loud and straight. They saw the plan as an effort to establish Punjabi hegemony over the smaller federating units and to wipe out their regional autonomy and ethnic identity. Ultimately, Punjab was the only province to benefit from the new scheme at the expense of the smaller provinces. However, another colonial modus operandi was followed during the One Unit period by awarding Sindhi land to non-Sindhis, especially to Punjabi and Pakhtun civil and military bureaucrats. The reason behind the phenomenon was the irrigation system of Sindh, which had created productive agricultural lands that attracted a large number of outsiders. On the other end, the Sindhi language was systematically discouraged. Compared to other ethnic groups of Pakistan, Sindhis have had the highest literacy rate in their mother tongue. According to the 1951 census, Sindhis were five times more literate than Punjabis, Pakhtuns and Baloch. Also compared to other indigenous languages of Pakistan, Sindhi has the largest number of publications, including daily newspapers. But Sindhi was replaced by Urdu in 1958, despite the internationally recognized principle that everyone has a right to promote his/her language and culture.
Afterwards, in July 1977, General Zia ousted the government of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, imposed martial law and suspended the constitution. Within two years Bhutto was sentenced to death after an ambiguous trial. Obviously, it was a personal loss for Sindhis inflicted on them by a military ruler. Military rule means negation of civil liberties, where public representatives lose their power and influence and power remains in the hands of the military and civil bureaucracy. Consequently, the channels through which people can articulate their interests become scarce. Hence, whenever there is military rule, Sindhis feel more deprived and alienated than ever. Therefore, the unexpressed Sindhi anger against the military regime exploded in August 1983 when the Movement for Restoration of Democracy (MRD) called for countrywide protests against the military rule. The response to the call in other provinces was pathetic, but in Sindh it turned into a massive popular agitation. So impulsive and widespread was the response that it not only disturbed the military rulers but even the MRD leadership was surprised. The intensity and potency of the unrest was extraordinary in the history of Sindh, as Sindhis have generally been stereotyped as docile and cowardly. Sindhis did not shy away even from confronting the heavily armed military forces. There were armed encounters and it took days for the army to contain the situation. The military regime called it "a conspiracy to create Sindhu Desh". A foreign hand was also accused for unrest in Sindh, as it has now been found behind the Balochistan crisis. How many times would we blame the ’foreign hand’ for provoking nationalism and the consequent unrest?
The writer is a freelance columnist
http://www.thepost.com.pk/OpinionNews.aspx?dtlid=21057&catid=11 |
