Citizens, not sujbects
Courtesy Daily Times
By Shahid Ilyas
As Jinnah rightly fought to gain for the Muslims more seats than their numerical strength in the central legislature of India would entail, the same can be argued for the numerically inferior Baloch, Pakhtuns and Sindhis in Pakistan
For far too long, the smaller nationalities in Pakistan have been ruled from Rawalpindi and Islamabad. It took 63 years for the Pakhtuns to obtain a name for the region that should have been theirs since the beginning. Although a good start, the change of name from NWFP to Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa and the abolition of the concurrent list by no means constitute the granting of full citizenship rights to everyone in Pakistan. There is a long way to go before the Baloch, Sindhis and Pakhtuns have full rights and, thus, start feeling like citizens, not subjects.
The Centre still holds a wide range of powers including its almost complete control over the country’s kitty, which is filled every year with revenue coming from the natural resources and taxpayers of all the provinces. The smaller nationalities — Baloch and Pakhtuns specifically — can still not hope to periodically hold the high offices of the federation, including those of the president and the prime minister, because of their numerical inferiority.
Even a legitimate and logical demand by the Pakhtuns that all the Pakhtun-majority areas that are geographically contiguous — Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa, Pakhtun areas in Balochistan and the Federally Administered Tribal Areas — should be amalgamated into a single Pakhtun province, is considered a taboo topic by the policies of the Pakistani establishment. The denial of a united province to the Pakhtuns has engendered among them the feeling that they are being divided and ruled. Rather than feeling like citizens of Pakistan, they feel as if they are the subjects of the country’s establishment raj. Yet, they are expected to be patriotic citizens.
The appointment of governors to the provinces by Islamabad — an Islamabad where there has never been a Pakhtun or Baloch president or prime minister (excluding Ghulam Ishaque Khan and Zafarullah Khan Jamali, who belonged to a particular clique in Rawalpindi-Islamabad, rather than to the masses of Pakhtunkhwa or Balochistan) — is another factor that further compounds the smaller nationalities’ feeling of being subjects rather than citizens. Furthermore, there is no logical justification for Islamabad to appoint representatives to the provincial capitals. Many will put forward the example of India where Delhi appoints governors to the provinces. First of all, Pakistan does not resemble India in terms of its ethnic composition, and secondly, India has had presidents and prime ministers who belonged to minority ethnic groups and lower castes. By the way, Washington does not appoint ‘viceroys to its provinces.
The appointment of bureaucrats to the provinces by Islamabad is another factor contributing to the people feeling like subjects. Why not give up this practice? Our friends in the establishment will argue that it enhances ‘national integration’. However, quite the opposite is the case. Bureaucrats are meant to interact with the public on a daily basis and tackle a number of delicate issues involving the common man. Yet, how can a man from Lahore or Karachi, for example, who cannot compose a single coherent and correct sentence in the Balochi or Pashto language, not to speak of his lack of knowledge about the cultures, traditions and body language of the Baloch and Pakhtuns, be expected to solve their problems? And the same is the case (though to a lesser extent, thanks to the similarity of Urdu and Punjabi, and the ability of the common man in Punjab to understand and speak Urdu) with Pakhtun or Baloch bureaucrats deputed in Lahore or Sargodha to serve the public. Incapable of speaking the local language and mixing with the common man, the people get the impression that the central bureaucrats deputed to their provinces and districts are their masters, not servants. This engenders in them the feeling of hostility towards the officials, leading to a ‘national weakening’ rather than national integration.
Democracy may be the best form of government but caution has to be exercised to make sure that it does not lead to a majoritarian rule of the main nationality over the minority ones, thus transforming the latter into subjects rather than citizens. This is exactly how Mohammad Ali Jinnah argued when he was fighting for the creation of a separate state for the Muslims of India. He argued against majoritarian rule in a religiously diverse country like India, where Hindus constituted a majority of the population. The same can be argued in the ethnically diverse country of Pakistan. As Jinnah rightly fought to gain for the Muslims more seats than their numerical strength in the central legislature of India would entail, the same can be argued for the numerically inferior Baloch, Pakhtuns and Sindhis in Pakistan.
The dream of a prosperous and stable Pakistan can come true only if all its inhabitants feel like citizens, not subjects. The passage of the 18th constitutional amendment is a good first step in that direction, but many more measures are yet to be taken towards ensuring that Pakistan emerges as a peaceful and stable state. The smaller nationalities are celebrating the abolition of the concurrent list, but they celebrate it with an eye on further initiatives that need to be taken. The Centre needs to retain only defence, foreign affairs, currency and communications, and the rest of the subjects on the long federal legislative list need to be devolved to the provinces. The practice of appointing governors and bureaucrats by the Centre to the provinces will need to be abolished. A parliament in which all nationalities hold equal representation needs to be created. The high offices of the state, including those of the president, prime minister, speaker, chairman senate, justices of the Supreme Court, chiefs of armed forces, and heads of federal autonomous and semi-autonomous commissions, corporations and think-tanks, need to rotate between the provinces. Only then will the people of the country, no matter to what nationality they belong, feel like equal and proud citizens of Pakistan. Patriotism and supra-Pakistani nationalism, the desired elements of the military, will be the natural outcome.
The writer can be reached at ilyasakbarkhan@gmail.com
By Shahid Ilyas
As Jinnah rightly fought to gain for the Muslims more seats than their numerical strength in the central legislature of India would entail, the same can be argued for the numerically inferior Baloch, Pakhtuns and Sindhis in Pakistan
For far too long, the smaller nationalities in Pakistan have been ruled from Rawalpindi and Islamabad. It took 63 years for the Pakhtuns to obtain a name for the region that should have been theirs since the beginning. Although a good start, the change of name from NWFP to Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa and the abolition of the concurrent list by no means constitute the granting of full citizenship rights to everyone in Pakistan. There is a long way to go before the Baloch, Sindhis and Pakhtuns have full rights and, thus, start feeling like citizens, not subjects.
The Centre still holds a wide range of powers including its almost complete control over the country’s kitty, which is filled every year with revenue coming from the natural resources and taxpayers of all the provinces. The smaller nationalities — Baloch and Pakhtuns specifically — can still not hope to periodically hold the high offices of the federation, including those of the president and the prime minister, because of their numerical inferiority.
Even a legitimate and logical demand by the Pakhtuns that all the Pakhtun-majority areas that are geographically contiguous — Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa, Pakhtun areas in Balochistan and the Federally Administered Tribal Areas — should be amalgamated into a single Pakhtun province, is considered a taboo topic by the policies of the Pakistani establishment. The denial of a united province to the Pakhtuns has engendered among them the feeling that they are being divided and ruled. Rather than feeling like citizens of Pakistan, they feel as if they are the subjects of the country’s establishment raj. Yet, they are expected to be patriotic citizens.
The appointment of governors to the provinces by Islamabad — an Islamabad where there has never been a Pakhtun or Baloch president or prime minister (excluding Ghulam Ishaque Khan and Zafarullah Khan Jamali, who belonged to a particular clique in Rawalpindi-Islamabad, rather than to the masses of Pakhtunkhwa or Balochistan) — is another factor that further compounds the smaller nationalities’ feeling of being subjects rather than citizens. Furthermore, there is no logical justification for Islamabad to appoint representatives to the provincial capitals. Many will put forward the example of India where Delhi appoints governors to the provinces. First of all, Pakistan does not resemble India in terms of its ethnic composition, and secondly, India has had presidents and prime ministers who belonged to minority ethnic groups and lower castes. By the way, Washington does not appoint ‘viceroys to its provinces.
The appointment of bureaucrats to the provinces by Islamabad is another factor contributing to the people feeling like subjects. Why not give up this practice? Our friends in the establishment will argue that it enhances ‘national integration’. However, quite the opposite is the case. Bureaucrats are meant to interact with the public on a daily basis and tackle a number of delicate issues involving the common man. Yet, how can a man from Lahore or Karachi, for example, who cannot compose a single coherent and correct sentence in the Balochi or Pashto language, not to speak of his lack of knowledge about the cultures, traditions and body language of the Baloch and Pakhtuns, be expected to solve their problems? And the same is the case (though to a lesser extent, thanks to the similarity of Urdu and Punjabi, and the ability of the common man in Punjab to understand and speak Urdu) with Pakhtun or Baloch bureaucrats deputed in Lahore or Sargodha to serve the public. Incapable of speaking the local language and mixing with the common man, the people get the impression that the central bureaucrats deputed to their provinces and districts are their masters, not servants. This engenders in them the feeling of hostility towards the officials, leading to a ‘national weakening’ rather than national integration.
Democracy may be the best form of government but caution has to be exercised to make sure that it does not lead to a majoritarian rule of the main nationality over the minority ones, thus transforming the latter into subjects rather than citizens. This is exactly how Mohammad Ali Jinnah argued when he was fighting for the creation of a separate state for the Muslims of India. He argued against majoritarian rule in a religiously diverse country like India, where Hindus constituted a majority of the population. The same can be argued in the ethnically diverse country of Pakistan. As Jinnah rightly fought to gain for the Muslims more seats than their numerical strength in the central legislature of India would entail, the same can be argued for the numerically inferior Baloch, Pakhtuns and Sindhis in Pakistan.
The dream of a prosperous and stable Pakistan can come true only if all its inhabitants feel like citizens, not subjects. The passage of the 18th constitutional amendment is a good first step in that direction, but many more measures are yet to be taken towards ensuring that Pakistan emerges as a peaceful and stable state. The smaller nationalities are celebrating the abolition of the concurrent list, but they celebrate it with an eye on further initiatives that need to be taken. The Centre needs to retain only defence, foreign affairs, currency and communications, and the rest of the subjects on the long federal legislative list need to be devolved to the provinces. The practice of appointing governors and bureaucrats by the Centre to the provinces will need to be abolished. A parliament in which all nationalities hold equal representation needs to be created. The high offices of the state, including those of the president, prime minister, speaker, chairman senate, justices of the Supreme Court, chiefs of armed forces, and heads of federal autonomous and semi-autonomous commissions, corporations and think-tanks, need to rotate between the provinces. Only then will the people of the country, no matter to what nationality they belong, feel like equal and proud citizens of Pakistan. Patriotism and supra-Pakistani nationalism, the desired elements of the military, will be the natural outcome.
The writer can be reached at ilyasakbarkhan@gmail.com
Comments