Quite an interesting article, not sure how much I believe it but there are points I may agree with.
Im not sure what connections either the MQM or ANP have with India nowadays. Previously both have had quite negative for Pakistans national interest, relations with India.
What would the MQM get for a provincial autonomy bill? I personally believe the MQM would be foolish to support the break up of pakistan they find more peace and power than they would find if Sindh ever became independent. Then the attention and focus of the Sindhis would be on MQM alone. If karachi and Hyderabad was to be made independent of Pakistan and Sindh how would the MQM produce food and water for its people? At the moment Karachi is a port which serves Pakistan but theres nothing stopping the Sindhis building a new port then or using a similar new port in Balochistan?
When I look at it overall, I do believe the way its going it looks like there is some truth in it.
Ahmed Quraishi.com
MQM-PPP-ANP Scheme For Dividing Pakistan
The MQM claims to represent the entire Urdu speaking population of Pakistan, which is false. The ANP claims to represent all the Pashtun. Which is false too. Both of them are anti-Pakistan parties and their leaderships have maintained close ties to India. Now both of them are governing Pakistan as part of a U.S.-brokered setup. And when the U.S. and India are working vigorously on multiple fronts to break up Pakistan, they have the perfect allies in this MQM-PPP-ANP government. **Both MQM and ANP can ignite an ethnic war overnight. Pakistanis need to be wary of the so-called Provincial Autonomy bill presented by MQM. **Patriotic Pakistanis who are members of these three parties need to keep an eye on their leaderships, especially their dealings with U.S. diplomats and their secret visits to America.
By Usman Khalid [POST-ARTICLE COMMENTS BY AHMED QURAISHI]
Wednesday, 4 February 2009.
WWW.AHMEDQURAISHI.COM
LONDON, U.K.—The MQM as well as the AZ–PPP are playing poker with all their cards on the table. Their moves are not hard to anticipate and frustrate.
Never in the history of any country has a government so consistently acted against the national interest as the Zardari Administration. He presides over a coalition comprising political parties that oppose Pakistan. Under his leadership, the PPP has also become an anti-Pakistan party that works for the Indian agenda—more eagerly on points on which India and the U.S. agree.
The break-up of Pakistan has been the agenda of India and America during the Bush era. President Obama has yet to show his hand but it is unlikely that he would change that objective; he is more likely to use smart power to achieve his objective, which is the preferred method of India anyway. Besides, India has experience of 1971 for breaking up Pakistan. In 1971, India had Soviet support for its plans, now it has U.S. support. The scheme has three parts:
-
The first part of the Indo-U.S. scheme was to install a government in Pakistan that does not care about national interests. That has been successfully accomplished; all the ruling parties are anti-Pakistan. Their popularity rating has sunk to 12 per cent and they do know why but they do not care; they still have long enough time – four years – to accomplish the break-up of Pakistan.
-
The second part is to make ‘provincial autonomy’ the focal point of politics. Since the experience of 1971 is fresh in the minds of the people, no province is ready to repeat the mistake. But India has other cards to play. It has a ‘Trojan Horse’ in the politics of Pakistan in the shape of the MQM claiming to represent Pakistanis who came from lands that are now part of India. While not everyone who is – or has ancestors who were – migrants from territories that are now in India supports MQM, the party’s leadership appears to ignore the fate of Bihari Muslims in East Pakistan after it seceded; they became stateless. The fate of the Mohajir in Pakistan would be the same if politics in the provinces were organized along ethnic lines. And yet, surprisingly, the MQM has volunteered to lead the political campaign for the break-up of Pakistan. Why? Because they have to obey those who fund and direct them. It was Sheikh Mujib who fronted the Indian campaign in 1971; it is Altaf Hussain in 2009.
-
The third part of Indo-U.S. scheme is that the armed forces should be discredited and demonized. That is not difficult because the wounds inflicted by ‘General’ Musharraf on Pakistan are still raw. He is the one who acquiesced to Indo-U.S. diktat on every issue of national importance. He deceived the people and acted dishonorably so frequently that it is hard for his successors to resurrect the image of the armed forces. The Army operations against the ‘Islamists’ in Swat and FATA are controversial both in objectives as well as conduct. **The Army has been found to be unable to defend itself – physically and in public perception. The biggest success of the Indo-U.S. strategy has been to set the Islamists – who had been the nemesis of the secular forces - on Pakistan instead. **
There is confusion in Pakistan of the same kind as in 1971. It was public knowledge that Sheikh Mujib was an Indian agent and would act on India’s directions, but the political class looked at him with admiration for his ‘courage’ to establish contact with the ‘enemy’ and secure its support. Today, Altaf Hussain is held in similar awe for having enlisted India and America in his support. His other anti-Pakistan coalition partners – the ANP and PPP – would give their eyeteeth for the spell he casts over his Shia-Muhajir constituents. The patriotic Pakistanis – despite being in overwhelming majority - are stricken by dumbness as they were in 1971. Thy do not even have the courage to criticize the MQM draft of constitutional amendment.
There are two important arguments that need to be articulated by the patriotic press and the politicians:
1.Provincial autonomy is neither a universal doctrine nor an Islamic one. It is rooted in the history of the British Empire in India that annexed different territories at different times on different terms. The essential feature of their ‘conquests’ – whether the territory was annexed or remained under ‘princely rule’ - was that the land remained under the ownership of the province or the state; it was the people who became the ‘subjects of the crown’. **Provincial autonomy is fair and good if the land revenue and taxes on minerals – including oil and gas - are collected exclusively by the provincial governments and used for development of infrastructure, irrigation, and maintenance of law and order. The responsibility for health and education should be returned to the federal government as it is the one responsible for the security and welfare of the people and collects taxes on peoples’ income and production. **.
2.**A powerful country is one where the society is cohesive and the people are free. Since 98% of Pakistanis are Muslims, the cohesion among the people is remarkable. The people are free to move inside the country and for work overseas. The Pakistanis are institutionally free and Pakistan is a strong country. Imagine the situation if a Kashmiri or a Pashtun required a work permit to work in the Punjab or Sindh. Would it serve the interest of any province? Balochistan is a province with Pashtun, the Baloch and non-Baloch in almost equal numbers. Should Balochistan be split into three provinces? What would be result of such a split? Mass migrations, more strife and even more poverty and destitution. There are more Pashtun in Karachi than in Peshawar. There are more Baloch in Sindh and Punjab than in Balochistan. The people have benefited from such migration. Had that not been the case they would not have moved. To the extent that provincial autonomy places restrictions of freedom of people to move, it is regressive. **
That the provinces of Pakistan are not defined by or restricted to any ethnic group is the strength of Pakistan. It is only the enemies of Pakistan who want to define the provinces of Pakistan in ethnic terms. That is why it is the prime enemy of the state of Pakistan, whose leaders decried the Two Nation Theory and the Founder of Pakistan in New Delhi – the MQM – which is the mouthpiece of the Indian agenda. The political class is not going to criticize the MQM and its nefarious activities. It is partly because of fear of being gunned down by this mafia and partly because the leaders of the other political parties admire the way MQM has organized itself mafia style.
The people of Pakistan are wide-awake and can see through the Indo-U.S. sponsored slaughter in their country. The U.S. support notwithstanding, the ANP has been wiped clean out of NWFP and Balochistan. The MQM is nervous. Its leaders sitting in London and holding ministerial offices in Islamabad are meeting American officials offering them their services independently of Asif Zardari. **The situation of AZ is really difficult. His coalition partners – the ANP and the MQM – have closer relations with India and the U.S. They can start and sustain a civil war to break up Pakistan. **All Asif Zardari can offer – if provided the tools - is to use his army to crush the militants in Swat and FATA who have in any case been unleashed on Pakistan under a clandestine Indo-U.S. operation. But he India has a use for him. The third part of the Indo-U.S. scheme for Pakistan requires the armed forces to be an object of derision rather than awe, of contempt rather than fear. That can only be accomplished by wanton use of air power in Swat and FATA as is being insisted upon by the U.S., and by Asif Zardari with diligent support of his ‘tried and tested accomplices’ called advisors to the Prime Minister.
The people are wide-awake but they have little hope. The entire political class and the system on which they feed and thrive are ready to collapse. It may well be the Indo-U.S. scheme to break up Pakistan that overcomes their disinclination to mass action. Musharraf ended the prospect of the armed forces acting as an institution to save the country from its political class. Zardari is putting the final nails into the coffin of the political class. The lawyers, the ex-servicemen and other segments of the civil society may yet unite to replace the political class but that does not appear likely. The challenge is too big and the self-imposed restrictions on their objectives and actions are a heavy constraint. May be the MQM draft of amendments to the constitution makes the institutions of the civil society take up the challenge that the PML(N) and other like minded parties are unable or unwilling to.
The writer is retired Brigadier of the Pakistan Army who is Director of the London Institute of South Asia (LISA), www.lisauk.com
© 2007-2008. All rights reserved. AhmedQuraishi.com. & PakNationalists
Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any medium without
royalty provided this notice is preserved.
NOTE from Ahmed Quraishi: Just to add three points to this excellent analysis by Mr. Khalid:
1.**There is no escaping the fact that we need to reorganize the Pakistani state by re-dividing the provinces along administrative and not ethnic lines. Pakistani nationalism and identity must rein supreme, done in subtle ways. We need to have anything between 10 to 20 new provinces, with a state parliament and directly elected governors. This way we can end ethnic politics, get people busy in local politics based on health, education, and economy, and ensure a strong federal government. **
2.In my opinion, the only way this project can be executed is through a civil-military intervention, a kind of a ‘smart coup’ where the current political elite is disqualified from politics, parties are forcibly democratized from the inside, and a strong, civilian technocratic government is installed, made up of likeminded people, and backed by the Pakistani military.
3.**I must end by saying that today’s Pakistanis are the most integrated generation of Pakistanis in 60 years. Please remember that it is some of these useless politicians who use ethnicity to prop up their own careers. Akbar Bugti did it in Balochistan, and MQM and ANP are doing it today. **Unfortunately, even Mr. Nawaz Sharif tried to do it recently, when his party shrunk down to some parts of Punjab. But remember how Pakistanis across Pakistan, from Karachi to Khyber, from Sibbi to Sialkot, came together to help their brothers and sisters in Kashmir after the 2005 earthquake. Remember how all Pakistanis have contributed to the greatness of Pakistan. The official media never highlights the contributions of Pakistanis from all parts of Pakistan to the national cause, but it is there and needs to be remembered.
