Pakistan's polity and its viability

By Asghar Ali Engineer

``PAKISTAN WAS the biggest mistake in the history of mankind,'' once said Mr. Altaf Husain, chief of the MQM (Muttahida Qaumi Movement) of Pakistan, who is living in exile in London these days. Pakistan is in serious trouble 50 years after its creation. It had disintegrated into two parts in 1971 when Bengali Muslims seceded violently. Now, Pakistan is facing internal turmoil. Sindhis, Balochis and Pathans are highly discontented. Muhajirs, migrants from India, feel left out and let down by the Punjabi ruling classes.

Pakistan was created by M. A. Jinnah on the basis of the two- nation theory, more out of political expediency than the conviction that Hindus and Muslims were two separate nations. He maintained that religion, culture, language and historical heroes of the two communities were different. Such superficial theories do not stand any critical examination. The underlying assumption of the two-nation theory is that a community can be homogeneous on the basis of religion alone. However, the fact is that no human grouping can be homogeneous on the basis of religion. Religion, at best, is one important factor for unity but not the only factor. The Pakistanis are discovering this today. The Bengalis discovered it yesterday.

In fact, the seeds of two nations were sown by the Britishers in the 19th century itself when they began to treat, first out of ignorance and later on out of political mischief, Hindus and Muslims as two homogeneous communities. And in the beginning of 20th century, i.e. in 1909, they introduced separate electorates on the basis of religion, deliberately to divide Hindus and Muslims. In fact, before the Britishers introduced the category of religion in their censuses and created the myth of religious communities no such clear conceptexisted. People were referred to by their castes or professions or regions such as the Bengali qaum or Mali qaum or Ansari qaum or Rajput qaum. Each religious community was sub- divided on the basis of caste, region or language. There never was any concept of pan-Indian religious communities with one language, culture or even political interests. Jinnah's two-nation theory, on the other hand, assumed that all Muslims, and all Hindus, were one in every respect, be it culture or language or history or political interests.

He got maximum support from the Urdu-speaking Ashraf (upper caste, upper class) Muslims of Uttar Pradesh and Bihar. These were Muslim minority provinces of British India, and centres of Muslim rule at one time, where the Muslim upper class - zamindars, jagirdars and their scions in the higher echelons of Government service - lived and exercised a great deal of influence. And it was these classes which felt most threatened when Independence neared. The jagirdars felt that feudal estates would be abolished in independent India by the socialist Congress and their scions in Government service felt the Hindus would block their promotions in the future. Hence, they supported the Muslim League to the hilt. Neither the poorer masses of Muslims in these provinces nor even the ruling classes of Muslims in Muslim-majority provinces such as Punjab, Bengal, Sindh, Baluchistan and the North West Frontier Province were very excited by the idea of Pakistan.

It is an irony of history that the upper class Muslims from Uttar Pradesh and Bihar who supported the creation of Pakistan most are at the receiving end today in that country. The Muhajirs when they went to Pakistan in 1947 controlled everything from the military to the bureaucracy to the economy to the political leadership. But soon the Punjabis asserted themselves and marginalised the Muhajirs. This process was further consolidated when Zia-ul-Haq captured power. He appointed Punjabis in all key positions. Zia first encouraged the formation of the MQM and then divided it by creating a rival organisation called MQM (Haqiqi). The Haqiqi group did not survive for long though. The MQM today represents the aspirations of the lower and middle class Urdu- speaking Muhajirs.

The Muhajirs have no roots in Pakistan unlike the Punjabis, Sindhis, Baluchis and Pathans. Before the creation of Pakistan religion was thought to be the most important identity and the Hindu was seen as the oppressor. Now in Pakistan ethnic and linguistic identities have become the most important and the majority ethnic community, the Punjabis, are perceived as the oppressor. It is not Muhajirs alone who have serious grievances against the Punjabis but Baluchis, Sindhis and Pathans too.

Thus the MQM leader, Mr. Khalid Maqbool Siddiqui, who resigned from Nawaz Sharif's Government as Minister of Industries in protest against harassment of the MQM by Pakistan's army and police, said in an interview in Delhi that ``we brought together acknowledged leaders of the Balochs, the Pathans and the Sindhis. These national minorities realise the need to come together. It is history in the making. It is sincere effort, let me assure you. We have a joint platform.'' The MQM leaders are also now appealing to the Indian people in general and to Indian Muslims in particular to help the Muhajir cause.

It is interesting to note that as far as the Kashmir problem is concerned, it is the ruling classes of Pakistan's Punjab province who are raking it up time and again. Ethnic minorities such as Muhajirs, Sindhis and Baluchis are not all that interested. For, they themselves are fighting for greater autonomy. Many Sindhis and Balochis told me that Kashmir was Punjab's and not Pakistan's problem. The Muhajirs too are cool to the Kashmir question. Mr. Khalid Maqbool Siddiqui said ``The MQM is quite clear on Kashmir. Let the will of the Kashmiri people prevail. Both India and Pakistan must facilitate this. Beyond that, we have not taken sides.''

There was a time when north Indian Muslims saw Pakistan as their emotional refuge. Now, there is a reverse trend. Muhajirs see India as their emotional refuge. They are seeking their roots in India. A Muhajir had told me way back in late 1970s in London, when the MQM did not even exist, that ``we committed a great mistake by migrating to Pakistan. We are much more discriminated against in Pakistan than Indian Muslims by Hindus''.

The Muhajirs feel lost in Pakistan and a common religious identity is of no help to them. They have much greater affinity for Indian Muslims with whom they share common linguistic and cultural values. This is a very important development; India is democratic and values its pluralism whereas Pakistan has become an ideological state which suppresses pluralism. In fact, pluralism is always thought to be a threat in ideological states. There is no democracy in Pakistan and a feudal structure is still going strong there. Some Muhajirs describe Pakistani democracy as `pseudo-democracy' or even more as `feudo-democracy'.

Here there is lesson for all those who adopt the majoritarian attitude and deprive minorities - religious or ethnic - of their just rights and just share in power. In a democratic world, minority rights are human rights and no minority will take it lying down if its rights are trampled underfoot. Religious commonality alone cannot ensure political or even social and cultural homogeneity. Pakistan has proved this, if any decisive proof is needed. Our own Hindutvawadis need to learn a lesson from what is going on in Pakistan. Creation of a ``Hindu Rashtra'' will aggravate problems rather than solve any. It is democratic pluralism which is India's main strength.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Opinion
Previous : A mixed picture
Next     : Vidarbha and Statehood