The Problem and the Solution - I
By Dr. I. Kamal
CA
The current political problems of Pakistan can be traced back to two root causes:
(a) Although there were demonstrations of unity for brief periods just after its creation and during the 1965 war with India, and glimpses of unity can be seen during sport tournaments, the country has not been able to forge a national identity, and
(b) Neither the parliamentary system of government nor the military dictatorships under which the country has been governed have been able to deliver the goods.
In recent months, there has been an increasing demand in the country for more provinces, which is tied to questions of a national identity, and for a system change, which requires a critical appraisal of the parliamentary system of government. This article discusses these problems and proposes optimal solutions.
"Woe unto the nation that is split into numerous fragments,
Each fragment considering itself to be a nation!"
-- Khalil Gibraan
One of the biggest impediments to progress and development in Pakistan has been its conversion into a multi-national state, with its major components at loggerheads. Ibn-e-Insha had lamented that in Pakistan there is a Sindhi nation, a
Punjabi nation, a Bengali nation (alas!), all kinds of nations except a Pakistani nation. The concept of multiple nationalities within one country is a negation of the two-nation theory on the basis of which Pakistan was founded. Its logical conclusion is civil war or disintegration, as we have seen in the Balkans and the former Soviet Union, and as we learnt to our own sorrow in the case of Bangladesh.
The best way to get rid of the evil of multiple nationalities in Pakistan is to remove the ethnic connotation from the administrative divisions of the country, and to restructure them into smaller, more balanced and more governable units. The Quaid-i-Azam had described the existing demarcation and the consequent provincialism as "a relic of the old administration". He had said, "We are now all Pakistanis – not Baluchis, Pathans, Sindhis, Bengalis, Punjabis and so on ... and should be proud to be known as Pakistanis and nothing else. " (Quaid-i-Azam Speaks, June 15, 1948, p. 156, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Govt. of Pakistan).
The re-demarcation of provincial boundaries should be based not on ethnic lines but on administrative divisions small enough so that democracy can be felt at the grassroots. Such delineation already exists in the form of the twelve former Divisions of West Pakistan under One Unit, as shown in the map. One Unit failed because of the fear of domination by the Punjab, where the seat of government was located. A setup where sixty per cent of the population lives in one province (the Punjab) is unwieldy, and is bound to raise feelings of insecurity in the smaller provinces ( in contrast, the population of California, the largest state of the USA is only fifteen per cent of the country's population). Many of the political squabbles in recent years emerged because of meddling by the federal government to enforce and strengthen its party's rule in Punjab, the most populous state. Currently, a game of blame and counter-blame is being played by the Center and the provincial government of Punjab, at considerable cost to the nation in terms of wasted funds and time.
Restoring the former Divisions of West Pakistan as provinces or states would avoid controversy and hassle, and provide all the benefits of One Unit without the
disadvantage of the true or imagined fear of domination by the Punjab. With this manner of division, seekers of conspiracy theories will not be able to describe it as an attempt to divide Punjab, or Sindh, or Pakhtoonkhwa or Baluchistan, because each province will be subjected to the same treatment, with the purpose of simplifying administration and getting rid of the evils of ethnicity.
Each of the twelve divisions has enough resources to develop and prosper. For example, the two divisions of Baluchistan, considered to be the most disadvantaged, have Sui gas, over which they should be given full control, and a long coastline, which can be developed with port cities and tourist resorts. The new demarcation would not detract from the heritage of any ethno-linguistic group, which did not suffer any cultural shock when the Hindu component was withdrawn in 1947, nor when the groups lived under One Unit for fifteen years. The present provincial set-up legitimizes ethnic divisions, and results in problems of national significance such as the Kalabagh Dam issue to be viewed from the parochial point of view.
Currently, there is a public demand for more provinces in Pakistan. Unfortunately, the demand is being made on linguistic bases, such as the demand for a Seraiki-speaking province. If one travels from the Khaiber to Karachi, one would note that there is a gradual change in language and dialects: the country does not have air-tight linguistic compartments. With the set-up proposed in this article, Bahawalpur and Multan will be predominantly Seraiki-speaking. The demand would thus be met, but in a non-parochial manner.
The new provinces would have the right to impose and collect their own taxes and spend the revenues within their own boundaries. The federal government should restrict itself to defense, foreign affairs, inter-provincial affairs, foreign trade and commerce, currency and a few other necessary portfolios. As in the USA, government and taxation should be at three levels: municipal or district, state and federal. This will avoid squabbles which invariably occur over the allocation and release of funds by the federal government under the NFC awards.
No democracy is a true democracy unless it is felt at the grassroots, and it can only be felt at the grassroots by the devolution of power to smaller, governable entities. The new provinces, with elected rather than nominated governors, would
have control over their own destinies and prosper in a spirit of healthy competition. Empowerment at the local level would help the people in developing a sense of local pride in their district and state, a sense that they themselves are responsible for their own neck of the woods instead of feeling powerless and subject to the whims of people sitting in ivory towers in some distant location. With the twelve provinces, no leader would have grounds to exploit sections of the population on ethnic or parochial grounds, and the people would unite to fight the common enemy of injustice, corruption and absence of meritocracy. In the twenty-first century, there is no room for ethnicity or other barriers that divide people from other people living in the same area.
From recent and contemporary history we have two examples of administrative divisions within a federal set-up: the former Soviet Union, where the divisions were based on "nationalities", and the United States, where the states are based on common-sense administrative divisions, with boundaries generally made up of
straight lines. The Soviet Union disintegrated, while the USA is one of the most stable democracies in the world. In the break-up of the Soviet Union lies a lesson for the people and leaders of Pakistan: If the country is to prosper, all talk of nations and nationalities apart from the Pakistani nation must stop, and all provisions which lead to the perpetuation of such ideas must be abolished. Once the citizens of Pakistan cease to identify themselves on the basis of their ethnic origin, a sense of national identity as Pakistanis will emerge. (Continued next week)
