Ethno Lingual; Do We Need More Provinces? By Dr Tariq Rahman

After Nawab Akbar Bugti's murder Balochistan is again in turmoil. The present government is making efforts through the NFC Award, special packages and the 18th amendment to reverse the tide. But the water threatens to go over our heads.

Pakistan should be divided as far as possible into ethno-linguistic units or provinces. India serves as a possible model but our peculiar conditions must be kept in mind

The 18th amendment has righted an old wrong -- the name which the Pakhtuns wanted for their province (Pakhtunkhwa) has been given to them after over 60 years of delay. But, quite foolishly, it has been hyphenated so that we have Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa when only Pakhtunkhwa or Pakhtunistan would have sufficed.

I had suggested both names in my columns several times in the last 15 years or so. However, if this name had satisfied the people of Hazara I would have welcomed it. But the problem is that this inept naming has not satisfied the people of Hazara; in fact, they have expressed their displeasure in violent ways.

That the violence was whipped up by certain political forces is regrettably true. But it is also true that when I visited Abbottabad in 1994 for field research for my book 'Language and Politics in Pakistan', there was a Hazara Qaumi Mahaz -- and it had been there since 1987 -- which demanded Hazara to be declared a separate province (see page 214 of my book for details). Hazara, after all, has over 4.5 million people and about 60 percent of them are Hindko-speakers. Moreover, if they had income of their own, money from Tarbela Dam and tourism would be sufficient. Why then should they be denied their right of being a separate province? Or, is it because their share of income would impoverish the Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa province, that this demand annoys the Pakhtun leaders?

The reason why the Pakistani decision-makers have a history of denying ethnic demands -- autonomy for provinces, creation of new provinces, less share of ethnic groups in political power and economic resources, lack of recognition of ethnic languages and cultures etc -- is because they have a model of a strong, unified nation-state in their minds.

First, East Bengal challenged this internal colonialist mindset. Using Bengali language as a symbol of ethnic identity the Bengalis challenged the state in 1948 and 1952 when blood was spilt on the streets of Dhaka. By 1955 Bengali was accepted as a second national language but economic exploitation remained, political domination continued and Bengalis were looked down upon by West Pakistanis. This led to a demand for autonomy expressed through the Six Points of Mujeeb ur Rahman and, when these were denied, there was a separatist movement and Bangladesh was born.

But the Pakistani elite did not learn a lesson. The demands of Balochistan were never satisfied. Every time the province erupted into militant violence the armed forces were used. Every time a solution was in sight the hardliners came in and disrupted the process. After Nawab Akbar Bugti's murder Balochistan is again in turmoil. The present government is making efforts through the NFC Award, special packages and the 18th amendment to reverse the tide. But the water threatens to go over our heads.

The point is that Pakistan is not a mono-lingual, mono-ethnic, unitary state. It is a multi-lingual, multi-ethnic federation. Indeed, it is a conglomeration of people which have been allotted borders and boundaries by forces of history. If these peoples are to become a people, a nation, then all these disparate ethnic groups must have a vested interest in the centre. This interest can be generated by creating provinces on ethno-linguistic basis wherever it is possible to do so without increasing antagonism between ethnic groups living in that province. Our major criteria should be to increase harmony and avoid bloodshed.

Also, in pursuit of the same broad goals, the provinces should be given a just share of power and resources so that they do not feel wronged and alienated. If the provinces feel they have a stake in the system they will strengthen it; they will not opt out of the federation.

Our decision-makers deny ethnicity on the wrong assumption that if they insist on only one Pakistan identity while denying ethnic identities, they will create a unified nation. This is a fallacy. Denying people their identities fans hatred; increases alienation and makes people more conscious of being dominated and marginalised than before.

Another apprehension of the majority (i.e. Punjabi power-holders) is that the Punjab will be weakened. Yes, this is entirely true. If there is a Seraiki province or other provinces cut out of the Punjab, as presently constituted, the Punjab will be smaller. But in its comparative weakness will be the strength it will gain from enhanced moral stature. Moreover, there will be less opposition to it and that will strengthen the federation. This is ultimately also in the interest of the Punjab.

I will now reiterate the suggestion I gave in the 'Conclusion' of my book Language and Politics in Pakistan. Please note that the book was published in 1996 and, therefore, I am not under the influence of any present-day political scenario or ethnic group. I suggest again -- and this is the fourth time I am doing so -- that Pakistan should be divided as far as possible into ethno-linguistic units or provinces. India serves as a possible model but our peculiar conditions must be kept in mind. There should be a Pakhtunkhwa province with the Pashto-speaking parts of Balochistan, the present-day Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa, FATA and Swat as a unit. The Khowar-speaking and Kalasha-speaking parts of Chitral as well as Kohistan which will become a separate province called Chitral-Kohistan. Hazara will also become a separate province by itself. Punjab will be divided into three provinces: the Seraiki province, the Punjabi province and the Pahari/Potohari province. Logically speaking, Karachi should also be a separate province and Sindh should have an alternative new port to compensate for its loss.

The aim of my proposals is to avoid conflict and promote harmony. Therefore, if the division of Sindh is not acceptable to Sindhi-speaking people a compromise solution should be sought instead. My assumption here is that the division of the Punjab would be conceded by the Punjabi majority in the interest of the country and the elite's own long-term interest. As for Pakhtunkhwa, since the new province I have proposed will be quite large and will allow most Pashto-speaking people to live in one province, I assume the separation of Hazara and Chitral would be accepted by the Pakhtun decision-makers.

In any case, there are many countries which have made smaller provinces for ease of administration or because of ethnic pressure. The Ansari Commission set up by General Ziaul Haq also advocated some re-arrangement along the lines I have proposed.

Much earlier in 1947, the Communist Party of India proposed setting up 'sovereign national constituent assemblies' in 'republics' in India. The establishment has always condemned ethnicity as 'provincialism' or anti-state agenda. In 1952 the government of the day used to blame the Communists and Indian agents for raising the Bangla language issue. Much later a secret report commented that India had not too much to fan the movement -- implying that it was a genuine demand of the people. Enemy agents do, of course, help separatists as they may be doing in Balochistan and as Pakistan did in the case of Khalistan during the 1980s. But agents cannot create the movement.

The problems are real and they are the products of wrong policies and practices. When a country's own policies change the ethnic-nationalist response also changes. Enemy agents cannot succeed in the face of real justice and good governance. So, to hide behind the excuse of 'foreign hand' is a recipe for disaster because then we do not inspect our own follies, cruelties and faults.

To conclude, the idea of creating new provinces along ethno-linguistic lines is potentially a good idea. However, every idea should be measured from the yardstick of public good. This idea should also be measured from this point of view. If it can reduce ethnic tension and provide greater justice it may be considered in the interest of the people of this country. And perhaps one way of measuring this may be by holding referendums after allowing public debate on the issue.