In Pakistan, much misunderstanding has been created around some key political concepts. Nationalism is equated with treason, secularism with atheism, socialism with communism, freedom of expression with anarchy, true history with betrayal of ideology, cultural affinity with anti-religious practices, etc. It isn’t surprising, therefore, that these misguided perceptions have brought Pakistan to the brink, with neither external peace nor internal cohesion, and militancy spreading over more than half the land mass.
This article is specifically about how nationalism, a legitimate aspiration of the people and politicians, has been construed to mean treason. There are fascist elements who want to control this vast nation by military and civil bureaucracy as an artificial and homogenous behemoth, where power trickles down from top to bottom, instead of letting it flow the natural way from bottom to top. In short, those who want the nation to be managed rather than be governed and distrust democracy, have a desire to suppress nationalist voices in favour of a centrist mode of government like a Sultanate or a Kingdom in some medieval age.
It is said in American democracy that ‘all politics are local.’ A politician starts his or her career in public service from a constituency and their primary responsibility is towards development of that constituency and welfare of its people. The politicians may rise to higher offices and delve in national as well as international affairs, yet it is their constituency that sustains them. No politician can survive elections if rejected by the people of their home base. Therefore, the pyramid of politics stands with the constituency at the pinnacle, followed by the province or the state before it enlarges to the national level. To advocate for the welfare of an area or the province, or nationalist approach, is not anti-national, rather it is the very essence of democracy.
Independence is a myth if not coupled with autonomy at the provincial as well as the grassroot level. A village managed by its own people will flourish more, and quicker, than when controlled by a distant bureaucrat at the sub-district or district headquarters, or at a further distant and remote provincial or federal government headquarters.
A village managed by its own people will flourish more, and quicker, than when controlled by a distant bureaucrat at the sub-district or district headquarters
India got independence on the same day as Pakistan but power has been devolved there to the village level with multiple tiers before the state governments. These elected local bodies are autonomous within their sphere of responsibility as defined by 73rd and 74th amendments to the Indian Constitution. There are in all, small and large, 283,976 local government bodies across India. Considering there are no independent functional local bodies in Pakistan, the difference is astronomical. The local bodies in Sindh and Kp are scantly functional, that too as sub offices of the provincial governments and not as independent entities. In Punjab and Balochistan, even these handicapped and crippled bodies are not in existence. In this scenario, there are bound to be loud voices demanding rights. If unheeded, these disillusioned voices create alienation, which is the mother of insurgency and militancy. There are many instances in Pakistan where failure to address local issues has progressed to bloodshed.
GM Syed was a Sindhi nationalist and one of the earliest proponents of Pakistan movement. He demanded democracy and provincial rights. He was branded a traitor, imprisoned in 1948 and spent thirty years of his post-independence life in prison. All he demanded was political, financial and social rights for his people.
The most mournful case, without doubt, is that of East Pakistan. Our Bengali compatriots had been wronged much. First, the Quaid attempted to snatch their language from them. Then they were relegated to a colonial status by placing headquarters of all national institutions first in Karachi and then in Islamabad. Their duly elected assembly and cabinet in 1954 was allowed to function for a month only before dismissal. The Chief Minister, the Sher-e-Bengal AK Fazl-ul-Haq, the man who presented the Pakistan Resolution on 23 March 1940 in Lahore, was placed under arrest. Those were the dice rolled by the elite of West Pakistan which only came to a halt 17 years later with the dismemberment of Pakistan and creation of independent Bangladesh. However, this same elite learned no lessons.
Without going into the detailed merits or otherwise of the Balochistan insurgency, the situation could have been mitigated if economic and infrastructural development had taken place in the province. Balochistan National Movement (BNM), ‘Haq Do Tehrik’ in Gwadar, (‘Give us Rights’ movement) and Baloch Yakjehti Committee (offshoot of missing persons cases) are protest movements based on perceived economic exploitation and political oppression. The Pakistani federation would have done well to pay heed to the national aspirations of the feuding Baloch tribes, who were, at best, reluctant subscribers to Pakistan in 1947. The province has been subject to insurgency and military action ever since.
To tackle the feeling of alienation, especially among the educated segments of Baloch youth, it is the responsibility of the federal government to let the province run on democratic self-rule basis and engage the national groups in dialogue to evolve and implement meaningful steps to address regional issues. Unfortunately, the use of state force continues to give new life to the armed insurgency.
Because of their location and political status, the nationalist movements in Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK) have found more sympathetic hearing in the power corridors. Kashmiris have risen against the federation several times. There has been some bloodshed but the federal government has always thought it wise to give in to the demands of the protestors. A much wiser course would be to stop meddling in the political affairs of this sensitive region. However, this lesson has not been learnt by the Powers That Be.
Recently, there was political impasse in AJK created by attempts to undermine the elected legislative assembly and have a compliant government. The current change of government by political engineering is bound to backfire and create frictions.
Another long pending national issue needing resolution has been the creation of a Seraiki province within or without the province of Punjab. The people of south and western Punjab have long demanded a separate province to facilitate their administrative, revenue and judicial issues. They have been promised either the creation of an autonomous province or a separate provincial headquarters at Multan or Bahawalpur in parallel with the one in Lahore. It makes absolute sense considering that the region south of Sutlej Rive was an independent state for two hundred years till Aug 1947. Every political party has acceded to this demand but has renegaded on its implementation. That attitude only exacerbates the adverse feelings of people in that region that, if not resolved, can lead to alienation. A wise leadership acts before a demand is transformed into a passionate issue. However, the trend in Pakistan, as witnessed in East Pakistan, AJK and Balochistan, has ben to neglect genuine nationalistic and regional demands till they turn violent. Thereafter, they are dealt with as law and order situations necessitating arrests, unlawful confinements, torture, forced disappearances and extra judicial killings. That is a very poor system of governance. In India, having similar regional and linguistic feelings, creation of new provinces based on language has been a norm. East Punjab, Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh have all been divided to form new provinces without much political agitation. Even in Canada and UK, voting has been held but defeated on the demand of separation of Quebec and Scotland respectively. That is, of course, a gift of democracy, which, unfortunately, does not exist in Pakistan, and that leads to disaffection and estrangement.
The parties demanding regional rights are, by nature, small parties but they cannot be regarded as insignificant. Their neglect can only create dormant anger, preparing the ground for a sudden, unexpected conflagration. Taking note of history of subcontinent, the very recent cases of political upheavals in Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal demonstrate that when floodgates of public anguish overflow, the torrents are hard to control. In the case of Pakistan, successful street agitations against Ayub Khan in 1968-69, against Bhutto in 1977 and against Musharraf in 2007, commenced as spontaneous uprisings, not envisioned by the then rulers who, by all appearances, were firmly enthroned. No amount of immunities saved them from the wrath of the people. The lesson learnt is that rulers, especially those who are elected through referenda or tainted elections, must keep a firm eye on genuine public demands and forestall them by engagement and forbearance, before they turn violent and uncontrollable.
Nationalism is expression of legitimate desire for autonomy. It should not be ignored and never labelled as disloyalty. It is not treason in any sense of the word. Regional demands may appear trivial, or may even be insignificant, but they are never inconsequential. Their neglect can have consequents that are proportionally larger than the original demands. Pakistan has suffered many a times because Islamabad played tone deaf to the feelings of people who appear very distant and unimportant. Water supply, communication infrastructure, health facilities, educational network, law and order and economic development are essential requirements for any society. If not provided, they cause resentment and are cause for alienation. Wise nations never allow issues to become millstones around their necks.