Prof. Sharif-al-Mujahid
The vulnerability of a federal polity against the thrust of internal diversity is a phenomenon that is world wide. Except in well established federal polities such as the US, which are sustained by durable institutions, fool proof mechanisms and crystallised conventions that lay down in specific terms the powers, obligations and boundaries of the state and federal governments. Even such a seemingly durable federation as that of Canada has been rocked by the Quebec-based incremental French diversity (and separatism) over the past few decades and this despite an inbuilt mechanism to contain such volcanic, disruptive diversity. Hence it shouldn’t be too surprising if the Pakistani polity is today plagued by internal diversities:
Both India and Pakistan had started their existential career in August 1947 as federal as well as centralised states, being governed by the Government of India Act, 1935 (as adapted) till the promulgation of their respective constitutions. But some sixty-six years down the road, they have developed along different, indeed divergent, paths. Since the Indian constitution was promulgated on January 26, 1951, India has been able to develop a centre - i.e., the federal polity - that holds it together, even strengthens it and this chiefly for the outworking of two factors. For one thing, it has been able to control the narrative which determines the core aspects of the identity of a state. Because of its success over the decades, her identity has been internalised by the people and that to a point that its core attributes are not, ever disputed. Thus the federal bargain, as originally conceived, in the constitution, is by now entrenched in the people’s consciousness beyond any sort of reservations. For another, the centre has periodically recognized and accommodated diversities, both vertical and horizontal, except in Occupied Kashmir.
Soon after the enforcement of the constitution in 1951, New Delhi was confronted with a vertical diversity - as presented by the demand for linguistic provinces. The Punjab and Bombay were problematical, but Nehru had to bow before long to the persistence of their respective citizenry, and get these states bifurcated. The process of creating new (and even mini) provinces is still going on - for instance, Jharkand, Mizoram, etc.
Horizontal diversity, as represented by split mandates, has as well plagued New Delhi as a rallying point for the Opposition. The rise of a Marxist regime in Kerala in 1957 through the ballot box posed a great headache to Nehru, who, in a fit of fury and frustration, had it dismissed. But later he retracted on this impulsive move, and accommodation on political diversity became a rule, rather than an exception, in the evolving Indian political system. Again, it was political accommodation that had won over in 1962 the Tamil Nadu’s DMK/AIDMK, which was burning the Indian flag and the Indian constitution throughout the 1950s.
As against India, Pakistan has failed to control the meta narrative and get the core values/aspects of her identity internalised in the people’s consciousness. The core values/aspects of both 1956 and 1962 constitution were in dispute among some groups and regions, more so the latter one. To compound their affective and evaluative orientation towards the national political system, lack of recognition and accommodation of their political demands had played havoc on a gigantic scale. That’s precisely the reason why united Pakistan had come to such a sticky end in 1971.
That sticky end, compounded by the euphoria generated by the success of the Bangladesh venture, obviously provided a ballast to fissiparous tendencies and centripetal forces in the post-1971 (residue) Pakistan. But, fortuitously, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto was there, at the helm of affairs, and he saw to it that the regionalist and separatist forces had their outstretched wings clipped and that the federal polity was sustained and strengthened beyond measure. His crafting of the 1973 constitution by consensus was his most significant contribution in that direction. In tandem, he also launched upon a series of measures which strengthened the federation and crystallized the Pakistani identity. For instance, his deliberate choice to give his State Banquet address in Urdu in Dhaka on June 30, 1974 during his official visit to Bangladesh. In so doing, he was reaffirming the Pakistani symbolism represented by Urdu.
Commonalities strengthening the federal polity: Today, forty years down the road, Pakistan is home to a string of commonalities and a host of diversities, all sorts of them. First let me list, the commonalities which provide a common space for one and all, whether it leaves enough room for diverse cultural practices, and for ethnic identities to exist and develop or not. Briefly stated, these are as follows:
1973 Constitution: An agreed 1973 constitution which has stood the test during the past forty years, despite political upheavals, military takeovers, inter and intra provincial discordance and dissidence, and low-intensity rebellions. Especially after the 18th amendment which transformed Pakistani federalism from an organic to a cooperative one. At least seventeen ministries came to be abolished and devolved to the provinces after the Eighteenth Amendment.
NFC Award: The 2009 NFC Award which provides for considerable fiscal autonomy to the provincial units, obviously makes the Seventh Award more equitable, and leaves room for further consensus.
National Language/Link Language: Although Urdu is recognized as the National Language, a lingua franca represented by English for the elite, business and entrepreneur classes has been in vogue. In tandem, Urdu has served as the link language for the masses, and it has been immensely popularized by, especially, the electronic media. No wonder, Bhutto called it “a common denominator” and “the national language”, since, as he argued, “People in all the provinces... speak Urdu”. One major indicator of Urdu’s claim and clout is that the two most outstanding Urdu poets during the past six decades belong to non-Urdu mother tongued regions - Faiz Ahmad Faiz and Ahmad Faraz.
National and Regional Parties: The emergence of two major, though dynastically oriented, political parties - the PPP and the PML (N) - on a national level which have alternated ruling since 1988, besides some strong sub-national parties within the constituent units (as in Belgium and Switzerland) - parties such as the MQM, ANP, JUI, BNP, JWP and other Baloch parties. Tragically though, despite the Charter of Democracy (2006), the PPP failed to learn from its dismal failure during 1971-77 and 1988-90 to overturn a split mandate by hook or crook. And since Salmaan Taseer’s appointment in April 2008, it did try to rock the PML (N) boat in the Punjab but, fortuitously though, to no avail. Meantime, the Governor’s House was turned into a PPP den, violating the sanctity and neutrality of the gubernatorial office as well as basic democratic norms.
In contrast, MQM’s endeavour to shed its linguistic and urban Sindh origins, getting itself transformed incrementally into a Muttahida Qaumi Movement avatar and inducting itself into the mainstream politics, though generally unappreciated and misconstrued, is still a positive development. So is it sponsoring non-Urdu speaking candidates against Urdu speaking ones in some dominant Mohajir constituencies - such as against Javed Jabbar in the Federal ‘B’ Area cum North Karachi constituency in Karachi for a NA seat during the 2002 elections. (One wishes that the PPP takes a leaf out of it, and nominates a non-Sindhi to its traditional Lyari seat, if only to further buttress its claim as a truly federal party).
So also MQM featuring a string of Pakistan flags at its recent rallies, affirming its Pakistani roots, besides its party loyalties and affiliation.
If the PPP and the PML (N) and the ANP are downright dynastic, the MQM is severely monolithic and the “Quaid” oriented (and dominated). In the result, all four of them are bereft of internal democracy and that is bound to de-limit the chances for the eventual rise of a full fledged democratic order in Pakistan.
Representation of various groups at the Centre and in Administration: Although Punjab constitutes the largest province with about 56% population; the Pakistan polity has conceded more or less equal opportunities to parties from various provinces to stake their claim for power at the federal level. Otherwise, an originally Sindh based party like the PPP would not have ruled five times, totalling some 15 out of 20 years of civilian rule since 1971. In tandem, all the major nationalities except for the Baloch have occupied the Presidential office since 1970. The rotation between the various provinces, though not by design, has also occurred at the apex in the judiciary.
The polity provides a mechanism to guarantee various groups a place in the national decision making bodies and this by the representation of most, if not all, groups and/or territories in the federal cabinets, and a separation and exclusivity of powers to own sources of revenue for the constituent units as per the 2009 NFC Award.
At another level, women have been accorded 33% representation in the national and provincial assemblies, some 20% in local bodies and a fair representation in the central and provincial cabinets.
Minorities’ Participation: Despite the occasional inequities perpetrated on, especially, the Christian minority, the minorities have been more or less normally accommodated at various levels and in the electoral system. For the present, their seats are reserved, and they are nominated by the political parties as in the case of women’s quota of seats. However, it’s high time that the minorities’ demand for double voting and direct elections are conceded. At another level, they have been assigned four seats in the Senate, one each for every province, and 5% quota in the services. They have also had some representation in the judiciary cadre, with some of them being illustrious and high profiled - such as Justices Cornelius, Dorab Patel and Bhagwandas.
For now, a look at the other side of the picture:
Diversity: the thrust against a viable federal polity. The inherent tension between diversity and unity does affect federal governance in a large measure, and since federalism cannot flourish without full fledged democracy there is an organic relationship between federalism and democracy. After all, a democratic polity alone can accommodate diversity via the conduct of public policy including ongoing claims for rectification of past wrongs. Successful management of differences call for a democratic culture, an equitable share in power, decision making and resources, and development of backward areas and communities on a preferential basis. The major areas of diversity that need to be addressed on a priority basis are as follows:
Balochistan: Especially its demand for full jurisdiction over powers relevant to its ethnic survival, economic upliftment and nation building projects, and control over its resources.
Karachi: This megapolis is virtually a mini Pakistan, home to all ethnic and religious groups, a microcosm as it were — but hostage to widespread mayhem and willful destruction for the past three years. What has happened in Karachi and to Karachi underscore an utter lack of political will on the provincial government’s part, which call for the federal government to step in effectively, and mount a military operation, as demanded by all the parties except for the PPP.
Tragically though, the government has so far failed to heed and address the snowballing and festering law and order problem in one of the most dangerous places on earth.
Ethnic Federalism and Fault lines: in essence, Pakistan represents a multi-ethnic federation, with various ethnic entities being largely territory-based. The constituent units, though generally set up for administrative reasons and convenience, are more or less along ethnic and/or linguistic lines, despite a lingua franca and a link language. However, Pakistan makes visible the territorial distribution of ethnic groups with some fault lines - such as in Balochistan, southern Punjab (the Saraiki belt) and to a lesser extent in Karachi and Hyderabad in Sindh, and Hazara in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa hence the demand for more provinces.
That granted all said and done, the Saraiki belt in the Punjab alone makes a viable proposition, but new provinces in the other provinces are problematical. These should be entertained, if at all, for administrative, and not emotional, reasons. In any case, making them an election issue should be scrupulously avoided.
Conclusion: Finally, to sum up our discussion. Other than long standing tensions, there is a need, at once imperative and immediate, to recognize differences and to respect them while promoting unity, trust and solidarity among citizens and groups. In essence, this means that there is scant need to assimilate or get assimilated into other cultures but to respect them for what they are. Although the endeavour to balance diversity with unity is a continuous process, there is a dire need to develop multiple identities. Whatever be one’s racial, ethnic, linguistic and religious identity, everyone inhabiting Pakistan is first and foremost a Pakistani, and his Pakistani identity comes first.
However, unless the sub-identities are accommodated and integrated into the larger national matrix, by sorting out and resolving their demands and grievances, Pakistan cannot find or work out a balance between unity and diversity. And without such a balance, democracy, governance and national unity will continue to be hostage to the challenges posed by the ever intruding and intensifying internal diversity.
(The writer, HEC Distinguished National Professor, has recently
co-edited Unesco’s History of Humanity, Vol. VI, and The Jinnah Anthology (2010) and edited In Quest of Jinnah (2007), the only oral history on Pakistan’s founding father.)
