Have you quite finished with your childish rant? Now, when you’ve stopped crying, and calmed down, and would like a discussion, then tell me how this quote of yours re
“They are smart, they are creative, they are committed," Admiral Harris said. "They have no regard for life, neither ours nor their own. I believe this was not an act of desperation, but an act of asymmetrical warfare waged against us”
How does “they have no regard for life” or any of that related to the Pakistan Army about the Muktihi Bahini. The Muktihi Bahini did not use guerilla tactics, since they sided with the Indian Army and formed an army of a million troops to take on 30,000 valiant Pakistani troops. Also how does your comment “They are smart, they are creative” apply to a Bengali?
What a stupid thing to say, you actually believe Punjabis,Sindhis,Baloch etc, will not claim their own land that they have lived on for thousands of years?!
Then cry me a river when Sindhudesh becomes a reality, Azad Baluchistan becomes a reality and Pashtunistan becomes a reality. None of the provinces are ethnically homogeneous, so go ahead and deprive your minorities of their place in society and you will see the results. Point being, you cannot claim exclusivity for your province.
As for the 2nd part of your comment, Muhajir’s have never stood ‘quietly’. We all know the biggest terrorist group in Karachi is the MQM.
Karachi was a major port long before 1947.
I was referring to the average person. I am not a fan nor a supporter of MQM or their tactics. Muhajirs due to their background were the first to promote Pakistaniyet and after much discrimination, radical groups like MQM came into being.
What does Karachi being a major port have anything to do with this? It was created as aport by the Brits and was an ethnically, religiously diverse city, how did it become your baap ki jageer?
The current ‘President’, PM and many Generals are Mohajirs so stop whining
I am not the one creating threads about Pashtuns uniting nor am I the one calling other groups of people curry munchers and the like. If you can’t argue on the facts, then stop crying son. Even I acknowledged the fact that the current leadership is Muhajir so discrimunation is less, but it should not be there at all..not just for Muhajirs but for every Pakistani.
Bro, no hate for Punjabis or any other Pakistanis. I mean we are all seen as Pakistanis/Brown people once we are in the West. Fairness is just that, allowing talented kids of* any *province to have opportunities to do well. I think it goes both ways where one has to contribute towards the development of Pakistan particularly the less developed areas once you have benefited from the state.
The quota issue rankles many Muhajirs because many of their sons and daughters have worked very hard and are just looking for an opportunity to get an eduucation, a job etc. It is all about fairness, not special privileges.
I used to live in Karachi and remember the attrocities that the MQM did. They were truly a terrorist organization that played on ethnic divisions, that they are a part of the current government is very scary. while I dont support this thread in that it is dividing Pakistanis, it is important to know the city of Karachi before the MQM when everyone was just PAKISTANI, intermarried and spoke each others languages. In fact ppl used to protect urdu speakers in general because they were a minority in Pakistan(I think around 5%) its only later on when the Hindustani type (Indian muslims who didnt care for Pakistan and promoted their indianess and culture) hijacked the cause of the original mohajirs came and destroyed the harmony. Pakistan is a land for all the ethnic groups of Pakistan to come and share. My family is from Hangu but we have lots of relatives in Lahore and Karachi :) such ppl, especially if they are not from our country should not be allowed to destroy the beauty and magic we call Pakistan
It is true the Mohajir community enjoyed a special status till probably 1971, though that is debatable since we had a pathan president since 1958.
[/quote]
True Ayub Khan claimed Pashtun ancestory but had adopted Punjabi Culture and language and thus had greater affinity with Punjab. His support-base was Punjabi-Muhajir civil/military bureaucracy, politicians, commercial classes, and administrative machinary and his personal ambitions could have been served only by an alliance with these ruling structures. There is nothing to prove that he did anything substantial for Pashtuns.
On the contrary, he was instrumental in devising One Unit and then keeping it imposed for the whole of his reign to neutralize the numerical majority of Bangalis and pre-empt an alliance between Bangalis, Sindhis, Baluchis, and Pashtuns for democracy and change in the politico-economic and administrative order of that time dominated by Punjabis and Muhajirs. In his book "Friends not Masters" he claims to be one of the conceivers of the idea of One Unit and Parity.
How was One Unit against the interests of Pashtuns can be gauged from the fact that prior to the imposition of one unit hydroelectric resources (of NWFP)were under the control of NWFP but when One Unit was adopted, they were confiscated by the center and not returned back to the province after the desolution of One Unit in 1970. One Unit not only enabled Punjab and allied Muhair bureaucracy and industrial/trading classes to neutralize Bangali majority but also helped Punjab to snatch the resources of the smaller provinces.
[quote]
........ Sub-Continent in perspective before partition. Muslim league was dominated by Muslims of united India, Delhi being the capital for India naturally imbibed a sense of governance in the urdu speaking muslim population which was transferred to the newly formed state called Pakistan. It was this spirit and probably also a sense of superiority practiced by the mohajirs that contributed to a general resentment by other nationalities.
[/quote]
The ascendance of Muhajir community to the privelged status was not just due to its more-developed human-resource although it must be accepted that Muhajirs were comparatively better-educated and skilled. Responsible also were other factors, e.g.
Qaud-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jannah and in particular Liaqat Ali Khan had left their political constituencies in Hindustan and had been re-elected to the constitution-making assembly of Pakistan on the provincial quota of Bangal (East Pakistan). Liaqat Ali Khan in particualr was very ambitious and wanted to play a bigger role in the newly established country. For this purpose, he wanted to have his own political constituency. He settled a lot of Muhajirs in Karachi to build a constituency for himself. He even reserved a speial 15% quota for "azimeen-i-Hijrat" (Muslims that were still in India but intended to migrate to Pakistan) in federal jobs to spur migration. It is said migration of Urdu-speakers to Pakistan had slowed down towards the end of 1948 but witnessed a sharp ascent during 1949-50 due to Liaqat's pro-Muhajir policies.
Another thing he tried to do was to build a constituency for himself in Punjab itself by supporting big landlords and fuedals from Multan, Rawalpindi, and Sargodha (to which newly-emerged classes of Punjab responded angrily).
In the inital days of Pakistan, power-configuration was such that Punjabis exclusively dominated military and had a substantial representation in civil bureaucracy. Muhajirs, on the other hand, dominated civil bureaucracy and financial/industrial sector and had a fair representation in militray. Besides, influential leaders of Muslim League were from UP and Punjab. By collaborating with Punjabis and aiding the Punjab-dominated military to impose an authoritarian order on Pakistan, they gained substantially.
So Muhajirs rise to a priveled status was also due to the Muhajir-Punjabi alliance.
When Muhajirs arrived in Pakistan, irrespective of their financial position/status in India, they were assigned fertile agricultural lands and valuable urban properties, usually located in commercial hubs and centers of cities. For example shops, cinemas, and residential accommodations in Peshawar Cantt, left behind by Hindus and Sikhs, were alloted to Muhajirs.
In a large number of cases, they (Muhajirs) sold their properties in India and migrated to Pakistan. In Pakistan, they laid claim to properties left by Hindus/Sikhs. Consequently, they became more resourceful and prosperous.
As they had an overwhelming representation in bureaucracy and financial institution, they got preferetial treatment in securing import/export licenses, industrial loans, trading rights, etc. For example, ILA, Industrial Law Authority of Pakistan, a body that framed laws for industries was exclusively dominated by Muhajirs.
Whereas the rest of Pakistanis, especially Sindhis, Baluchis, Pashtuns, and Bangalis lived in rural areas under a stagnant social-fudal order with limited scope for freedom and mobility and almost no opportunities for education and skill enhancement, the old social order of Muhajirs was broken due to migration.
Moreover, Muhajirs settled in the dynamic environment of cities with greater economic, political, and eductaional opportunities and little social inhibitions to progress and prosper.
Karachi was federal capital and port city with a pro-Muhajir and friendly bureaucracy and commercial/industrial class in place for a common Muhajir to benefit from.
What I want to say is, other factors played a role in the ascendance of Muhajirs to power rather than just what you mentioned. And it was not just the love of Pakistan that compelled Muhajirs to migrate. Incentives for migration were also huge.
[quote]
Pathans have always dominated the transport business in Karachi,
[/quote]
Most of the Pashtuns, poor and landless, migrated to Karachi as labourers and took to transporation later.
[quote]
... with Afghan refugees influx their numbers rose exponentially.
[/quote]
The movement of Afghan refugees out of NWFP and Baluchistan was restricted till 1986. They were eligible to get aid and ration only if they remained confined to NWFP and Baluchistan. Karachi troubles started in 1985. And I don't think there was significant Afghan population in Karachi till 1985, when voilence occured.
[quote]
Pathans and mohajirs till the 1980s always coexisted peacefully and it is also true....
[/quote]
There was some tension between the two communities in 1964 incited mostly by Gohar Ayub Khan, son of Ayub Khan. Overall, there was no immediate clash of interests because Pashtuns were mostly involved in hard labour and transportation whereas Muhajirs preferred white color jobs and controlled industry, trade, and commerce. However, the migration of Afghan refugees in small numbers to Karachi might have incited the fear of a future demographic decline/imbalance in Muhajirs.
But overall I will ascribe it to a simmering ethnic nationalism in Muhajirs. The factors you've pointed to only served as an outer cause. MQM gained a lot from the voilence e.g. population of Karachi became polarized on ethnic lines; Muhajirs were politicised and militarilized and threw their lot behind MQM - thus MQM became the sole spokeman and representative of Muhajirs ousting Jumaat-i-Islami from the political stage of Karachi as a serious contender; Altaf Hussain rose to the height of popularity overnight; Migration of Sindhis to Karachi due to lawlessness in 1980s and other ethnicities was stalled; ethnic feelings in Muhajirs became strong and politically manifested; Muhajirs were politically organized.
It was after the voilence of 1985 that Muhajir Nationalism was actually born and MQM emerged as the representative of Muhajirs. I will also not rule out that the voilence of 1985 was planned.
It should also be mentioned that Muhajirs have always lived under the fear of being demographically overwhelmed due to the migration of other ethnicities to Karachi in great numbers.
[quote]
By the way, one should also include the bihari factor when talking about transport in karachi. When the biharis moved from East pakistan to the remaining Pakistan, they settled in areas adjoining pathan localities and started their own transport businesses including many others. Since these peoplke were trained by Pak army in armed combat, they had the ability and nerve to respond with extreme violence.
[/quote]
That might be only an immediate/secondary cause but not a primary reason. True there was a clash of interests due to Biharis involvement in transporation but the causes were more than that.
[quote]
Add to these factors the fact that Pa establishment used Karachi as a conduit for arms and drug conduit encouraging spread of klashinkof culture, increased flow of drugs, making of crime cartels, and most importantly setting up of supply chain for drugs and ammunition that needed to feed their target in afghanistan. It was this chain which has yet to be dismantled and the real source of many problems and yet source of ill-concieved wealth, and every nationality is involved some more than the others.
[/quote]
You want to say that Pashtuns in particular were involved in drug traffiking and other evils you've mentioned but the question is why did Muhajirs respond to these acts of Pashtuns as MQM i.e. Muhajir Qaumi Movemen? Why from the womb of voilence did emerge aggressive Muhajir Nationalism? Was not it more a question of lawlessness than assertive nationalism? You should also note that at that time, a Muhajir, affiliated to Jummat-i-Islami was the nazim of Karachi and all the union, tehsil, and district councils had absolute domination of Muhajirs. Majority of the provincial and national members from Karachi were Muhajirs although affiliated with religious parties mostly. The administration of Karachi as well as its media had absolute domination of Muhajirs. Why the reaction took a poltical turn (MQM)? There were clashes between Pashtuns and Muhajirs in Karachi in 1964...why not any MQM then?
[quote]
Bhuttos nationalization policy which targted mohajirs but that was more of a bonus point, his main objective was complete subjugation of the state including the capitalists who cud challenge his sense of power mania. Had he not indulged in nationalization, God only knows where Pakistan wud hv been today given our edge over other nations at that time (Korea, Malaysia, India).
[/quote]
The capitalists seldom have challenged dictators. I think it was more due to the fear that further rise in power of Muhajir capitalists of Karachi would overwhelm Sindhis completely that Bhutto took the measures Punjabis also didn't like it now that they had got rid off Bangalis. In the process, some Punjabi industrialists were also affected but that was comparitively a lesser price to pay.
Bhutto's socialist comrades may also have pushed for it but one cannot rule out Muhajir-Sindhi and Muhajir-Punjabi contradiction altogether. Sindhis had contradiction with Muhajirs at provincial level and Punjabis at national level.
In 1970, Lawrance Zairang listed 22 industrial families that were the most wealthy in Pakistan which included 16 Muhajir families. Had the situation continued, Pakistan's industrial sector would've been completely monopolized by Muhajir industrialists/capitalists..
[quote]
Bhuttos quota policy is practiced till this date even with Mqm rising to power. Idea was to discriminate against the urdu speaking 'privelaged' class and give the rural sindhis a better chance to compete. Well, the question that needs to be asked is why not in Punjab or Frontier where majority of the population lives in rural areas and does not have the same chance as their peers in cities? This was clearly a policy which led to fissures and has yet to yield any posiitve results.
[/quote]
There was an ethnic divide between urban and rural population and the urban population had an absolute edge over rural population as for as resources and access to education and skill-development is concerned. As for other provinces, you should rember that there was no ethnic divide between urban and rural population and most of the urban dwellors had strong rural roots thus tranfering some of the benefits of wealth accumulation to rural areas.
Had employment based on merit continued, Muhajirs would've become absolutely wealthy and Sindhis absolutely poor.
[quote]
Mohajirs were followers of Mawdudi? Simply not true. Karachi had 8 (eight) national assembly seats in 1971, of which JI was ablt to win only two, remainder six went to other parties including one to PPP. Some of the left wing students of that time came from Karachi who loved and adored Bhutto, little did they know they were supporting a charlatan.
[/quote]
Can you list the number of seats won by each party in that election? Still, JI was politically very influential in Karachi.
[quote]
As for the claim issue, well wud u give the same advise to Punjabis, Sindhis, Baluchis, Pathans?
[/quote]
Yes this question is difficult to answer. Personally, I think partition of the Subcontinent in two countries has created more problems than solved any. We couldn't live with Hindus so we made a demand for a separate state but still there is no peace between the two countries. Further, populations had to migrate accross borders to prosperous urban centers causing demographic imbalance and ethnic tension in the countries where they settled. Moreover, development and power couldn't be distributed evenly between regions and ethnicities leading to further resentment and internal migration. Some communities became overexploitative and marginalized others.
Today, when we see in the retrospect, Baluchis, Sindhis, and Pashtuns are the loosers politically, economically, and culturally. Other ethnicities may also be the loosers in one sense or the other but the above three ethnicities have suffered the most.
[quote]
....... Either we inculcate a sense of Pakistaniath irrespective of race ...
[/quote]
I think that is impossible. After partition, the founding fathers discovered that Bangalis were 54% of the population of Pakistan and West Pakistanis only 44%. West Pakistan was further divided into Pashtuns, Muhajirs, Baluchis, Sindhis, and Punjabis and didn't have one solid front against Bangalis. They were in a dilemma because if they made a constitution based on parliamentary democracy and proportionate respresentation, Bangalis would rise to power puting an end to Punajb's and Muhajirs domination. So for eight long years, constitution couldn't be formed. Finally they came up with One Unit and Parity. All provinces of West Pakistan were merged together into one province so that Baluchis or Sindhis or Pashtuns wouldn't be able to stand together with Bangalis against Punjabi-Muhajir collaboration. Further, 44% was declared politically equal to 54%.
Again as long as Muhajirs were priveleged, they were fervent adherents of Pakistan Ideology, Pan-Islamism, and Islamic brotherhood. But the moment, their status declined after 1971, they became Muhajir nationalists. This is true of other ethnicities as well. What we need is a realistic plan rather than abstract notions like Pakistaniyat or Muslim brotherhood. So you are right that "allow ethinic affiliations to prosper and be expressed in a civilized maner ie provincial autonomy."
Punjabis also didn't like it now that they had got rid off Bangalis
[/quote]
That's a very strong statement to make.
Wouldn't it be more appropriate if term Punjabi-politician had used. I don't know any common punjabi people who sit together and plan how to screw their brothers(pathans/sindhi/baloch).
We do how ever take pride to call them our brothers.
Other then that post is very insightful.
^^ I wonder which Punjabi politicians were responsible for 1971 debacle!
One think I don’t like is that when people talk about famous persons (those who are held in high esteem), they would try to appropriate every Indian/Pakistani hero to themselves, but when they have to deal with the infamous, they would try to disown their own or, at least, distance themselves from them as much as possible.
This thread is going into tangental debates...I have not read all the posts so I'll be brief in making some simple observations
1) Pashtuns are poorly represented in karachi because of the demarcation of boundaries, poor organization etc
Historically now:
There is a distinction between ruling elites and popular will, i do not believe any ethnic group is intrinsically bad..it is wrong to judge an entire people in a pseudo democracy like we have nowadays.
The distinction between the people and the elite is/was far more amongst Urdu speaking/Mohajirs and punjabis then other ethnic groups I believe that because:
* Karachis local populace has consistently opposed the federal government in elections..despite ayubs pandering to the urdu speaking business owners it did not earn him popular support electorally in karachi..in fact karachites even voted for Baloch nationalists when need be..on the other hand they have also backed the PPP in the 1979 local elections, conversely the Karachites backed non locals in the 1977 election people like Asghar Khan and Baloch like Sherbaz Mazari polled huge numbers despite the PPP rigging..so basically the karachi populace have never backed an establishment constructed and supported party. Whereas the same can't be said for the Punjab but you have to remember there were cases of ordinary people who set themselves on fire in the hope of shaming the army into releasing Bhutto. Also one musnt' forget the scale of PPP support in the 1980's in the Punjab and frontier was quite intense.
I disagree with the idea that nationlisations helped create the MQM, it was a factor but not the decisive one..if it had been so decisive why was there such a large gap between the time of the nationalizations and the formation of the MQM. The story of Altaf Hussains disillusionment can be traced to his experience in the army and not nationliasation programme. In fact you can trace the MQM's genesis to the de-nationlization programme launched by Zia ul Haq after 1977..in his attempt to create a new constituency in Punjaba nd the frontier he favoured returning assets to people from those areas and gae out loans to people from those areas. That new generation of business people developed with automatic monopolies and through using their clout in politics and not through fair competition (which explains the decline in corporate culture).
lastly, the Jamaat has been mentioned, you again have to remember something about the JI, the party suffered a very serious divide in the 1980's between the lahore wing versus the karachi one..the lahore branch was more ideologically pro zia and favoured the afghan "jihad"..that wing eventually won, leading to the illustrious Qazi sahibs ascent to power. That power struggle played one of the biggest roles in the collapse of the JI in karachi.
An Afghan "Pashtun" also killed arguably the second greatest leader of Pakistan, Liaquat Ali Khan- A Muhajir whose family migrated from Indian Punjab. A lieutenant of Quaid e Azam, a Muslim League stalwart and most importantly a Muslim who believed in Pakistan.
Said Akbar the Afghan who was blamed to have killed Liaqat Ali Khan had escaped to Hindustan along with his family in 1946 after a conspiracy against the govt of Afghanistan. In Hindustan, he was living under the protection of British governmentm which gave him and his elder brother, Zmarak Khan, regular salaries.
Pakistan continued these salaries after the departure of British.
Immediately after the death of Liaqat Ali Khan, Said Akbar was also killed. Begum Rana Liaqat Ali Khan urged an impartial inquiry into his death but to no avails. Three inquiries were held; one by a Muhajir Itazazuddin who later was killed mysteriously in a plane crash; the other by Justice Mohammad Munir upon instruction from Khwaja Nazimuddin; and the third one by Scotlandyard upon instruction from Mohammad Ali Bogra. Neither of these inquiries saw the light of the day.
The police officer Najaf Khan at that occassion was later promoted instead of being punished for failing to protect Liaqat Ali Khan.
Most of the authors have blamed the killing of Liaqat Ali Khan on Punjabi bureaucracy and fudals e.g. Ghulam Mohammad, Mushtaq Ahmad Gormani, Iftikhar Hussain Mamdot, etc. Tension was running high between Liaqat Ali Khan and Punjabi bureaucrats and newly emerged mecantile classes who had blamed Liaqat Ali Khan of pro-Muhajir policies and of trying to control Punjab through fudals like Mumtaz Daulatana etc. Liaqat Ali Khan had decided to replace Ghulam Mohammad with Abdul Rab Nishtar at the center.
But the same Liaqat Ali Khan is blamed to have expedited the death of Qaud-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jannah, the first GREAT leader of Pakistan. Fatima Jannah writes in "My Brother":
"I was sitting with Qaud-i-Azam when I came to know that Prime Minister Liaqat Ali Khan and Secretary General Choudri Mohammad Ali want to meet him. Qaud-i-Azam" smiled and said "Fiti you know why has he (Liaqat Ali Khan) come to meet me? He wants to know how severe is my illness and how long can I live more"
[quote]
Why shouldn't Muhajirs be a privileged community? From before the partition, Muhajirs were the most educated (think Aligarh) the most business minded (think Guj. memon community) and the most politically aware and active (think the main supporters of the Muslim League). Muhajirs willingly gave up their land, family ties and migrated to Pakistan.
[/quote]
All that answered in the foregoing post.
[quote]
The 'so called' Pakistanis only woke up on August 14 to find a 'Pakistan.' The support for Pakistan in the political quarters was tepid at best, yet the 'Muslim' element was the main factor for opting for Pakistan.
[/quote]
Bangalis, Pashtuns, Baluchis, and Sindhis rendered greater sacrifices for freedom both in terms of human loss and politically.
Why? Do you deny the fact that Muhajirs are scared of any change in demographic balance of Karachi? Recently, not only "kachi abadis" of Pashtuns but also Sindhis have been razed to ground and the inhabitants forced to re-migrate to their original areas.
[quote]
There is a distinction between ruling elites and popular will,....
The distinction between the people and the elite is/was far more amongst Urdu speaking/Mohajirs and punjabis then other ethnic groups I believe that because:
[/quote]
Popular will etc. are just bookish concoctions aimed at some apologetic explanation of the things. The fact is, when the textile industry of Faisal Abad made possible by increased cotton production due to consumption of water volumes greater than Punjab's share, employes 1.5 millions Punjabis, then ordinary Punjabi not just the elite knows where his interests lie.
And can you explain why was there a popular support in Punjab and Karachi in favor of military operation in Bangal in 1971 or military operations against Baluchis in 1973 or popular support in Punjab for military operation against Baluchis now?
[quote]
i do not believe any ethnic group is intrinsically bad..it is wrong to judge an entire people in a pseudo democracy like we have nowadays.
[/quote]
No community is intrinsically bad...that is true but then human being is selfish by nature both when they act as a group or individually. That is why we need representative political systems for long term peace and stability and not imperial models serving one or two communities at the expense of others.
[quote]
Karachis local populace has consistently opposed the federal government in elections..despite ayubs pandering to the urdu speaking business owners it did not earn him popular support electorally in karachi..
[/quote]
Were Ayub Khan elections fair? Why did they support Miss Jannah as you claim---because they disliked Ayub's dictatorship or because they considered Fatima Jannah as their own? Why did they extend popular support to Qaud-i-Azam language policy in 1950s?
[quote]
in fact karachites even voted for Baloch nationalists when need be..on the other hand they have also backed the PPP in the 1979 local elections, conversely the Karachites backed non locals in the 1977 election people like Asghar Khan and Baloch like Sherbaz Mazari polled huge numbers despite the PPP rigging..so basically the karachi populace have never backed an establishment constructed and supported party. Whereas the same can't be said for the Punjab but you have to remember there were cases of ordinary people who set themselves on fire in the hope of shaming the army into releasing Bhutto. Also one musnt' forget the scale of PPP support in the 1980's in the Punjab and frontier was quite intense.
[/quote]
Karachite is a broader term that doesn't necessarily imply Urdu-speakers.
Can you tell me why is pro-Bhutto agitation of early 1980s stronger in Sindh
compared to Punjab and Sindh and why PPP comparatively secures higher percentage of votes in Sindh and MQM in Karachi whereas Punjabis follow what their elite decide knowing that in ultimate disposition of things, these elite will matter?
[quote]
I disagree with the idea that nationlisations helped create the MQM, it was a factor but not the decisive one..if it had been so decisive why was there such a large gap between the time of the nationalizations and the formation of the MQM. The story of Altaf Hussains disillusionment can be traced to his experience in the army and not nationliasation programme. In fact you can trace the MQM's genesis to the de-nationlization programme launched by Zia ul Haq after 1977..in his attempt to create a new constituency in Punjaba nd the frontier he favoured returning assets to people from those areas and gae out loans to people from those areas. That new generation of business people developed with automatic monopolies and through using their clout in politics and not through fair competition (which explains the decline in corporate culture).
[/quote]
May be that is true. Zia denationalization policy might have had an additional more decisive impact. Combined with this was also Zia tilt to Punjab's bureaucracy. Moreover, Pashtuns were co-opted as junior partners to win over their support-which was a necessity of Afghan war. The two families that benefited from Zia de-nationalization were Saifullahs and Khattaks (General tyres) who invested mostly in Punjab and Karachi.
[quote]
...lastly, the Jamaat has been mentioned, you again have to remember something about the JI, the party suffered a very serious divide in the 1980's between the lahore wing versus the karachi one..the lahore branch was more ideologically pro zia and favoured the afghan "jihad"..that wing eventually won, leading to the illustrious Qazi sahibs ascent to power. That power struggle played one of the biggest roles in the collapse of the JI in karachi.
[/quote]
Muhajirs were as pro-Jehad as Punjabis. So that might not count as a reason. However, Mian Tufail was more pro-Zia because both were Arayian. You should remeber that many Muhajirs were minsters during early era of Zia rule (that is why JI was called B-team of Zia martial law). Muhajirs have always been a strong and influential component of Jummat-i-Islami leadership. Qazi Hussain was elected due to Afghan war compulsions and not support of Punjabis..it was a strategic move. The conservative section lead by Mian Tufail has severely criticized him.
Senator Khurshid Ahmad, a Muhajir, has been elected on NWFP seat. And Munnawar Hussan is expected to be the next head of Jummat-i-Islami.
OK. Since people are free to rewrite history here, I’d also like to play my part. Liaqat Ali Khan was probably killed by Pathan elite. The assassin was a Pathan. We all know that. And he was probably hired by the followers of General Akbar Khan, the first officer in Pakistan army who tried to destablize a democratic set-up by attempting the first coup in the history of Pakistan. He had connections with the communists, and had serious grievances against Liaqat Ali Khan. Democratic government got wind of this conspiracy and the coup-attempt was defeated.
I will not defend General Akbar Khan. I consider him as well as General Babur who killed innocent Muhajirs a disgrace to Pashtuns. I don't like Pashtuns associated with/serving establishment. But we should think logically i.e.
*Why the inquiries into the death of Liaqat Ali Khan didn't see the light of the day? Who it were that didn't like the disclosure or success of these inquiries?
*Who benefited from Liaqat's death?
You should also read some books like "Death of Pakistan's Democracy" and some other sources, etc.
[quote]
*Why the inquiries into the death of Liaqat Ali Khan didn't see the light of the day? Who it were that didn't like the disclosure or success of these inquiries?
[/quote]
Maybe because they implicated General Akbar, and the Pashtun establishment didn't want to implicate him? After all, Ayub was planning to impose Martial Law. Howzzat?
[quote]
Who benefited from Liaqat's death?
[/quote]
Who benefited from 9/11? Israel? Are they guilty of 9/11? (even if you suppose that a few years of Punjabi governor general were a huge benefit for Punjabis). One of my college professor's brother got killed. Police continued to hold the professor because the deceased had no children and he was the 'beneficiary' of the murder. They released him only when the real murderers were caught. What's your logic? Everything that can not be satisfactorily explained was planned by Punjabis? That's some weird logic.
I say my conspiracy theories are more credible. I would like to write a book of my own..
Begum Rana Liaqat Ali Khan had issued the following statement at the death anniversary of Liaqat Ali Khan in 1954.
"*Anniversary of the death of Liaquat Ali Khan *- Begum Liaquat Ali Khan, newly appointed Ambassador to the Netherlands and widow of the former Prime Minister, assassinated on October 16, 1951, issued a 500 word statement from the Hague calling for a solution to the crime and asking six leading questions: 1) "Why" was Liaquat murdered at the height of his popularity, "on the eve of ... important policy decisions"; 2) "Why" was the assassin shot after he had already been overpowered; 3) "Why" was the police official responsible (for shooting the assassin) promoted instead of punished; 4) "Why" were "certain interested and influential persons within the country ... anxious to remove Liaquat"; 5) "Why" is the Quad-i-Azam's name "being subtly and unjustly ignored"; 6) "Why" are these questions not answered. Liaquat's son, Wilayat Ali Khan, also issued a statement in which he pointed to the political and economic deterioration of Pakistan in the past three years and called upon the Central and Provincial Governments to cooperate with the newly appointed foreign expert, C.P. U'ren in his investigation. The Karachi Muslim League organized a public meeting at Jehangir Park, Karachi, to commemorate the anniversary. The principal speaker, Sardar Abdur Rab Nishtar, spoke generally on the "economic deterioration" of the country, provincialism, and eulogized the former Prime Minister. He claimed that Liaquat had been pressing for certain reforms at the time of his assassination. Nishtar was followed on the platform by Mohsin Siddiqi, General Secretary of the Karachi Muslim League adn by S. M. Taufique, President of the Karachi Muslim League."
I find your arguments thought provoking, do not always agree with it, but find a sensible, well read idea pleasent and refreshing.
I will try to be brief or to the point:
Ayub shifted the capital from Karachi to Punjab, creating a new city close to his place of birth and away from the political elite olf that time which included bengalese.
"And it was not just the love of Pakistan that compelled Muhajirs to migrate. Incentives for migration were also huge." Thats an unfair assumption, judging people who gave up their lives, property and honor for a land far away from theirs. Pakistanis born on this side of the border tend to forget or ignore the huge sacrifices made by muslims living in provinces with hindu majority ie central India. They have as much right to Pakistan than any Bengali, Punjabi, Pashtun, Baluchi or Sindhi.
Muhajir-Punjabi nexus explanation is plausible to a certain extent, but not to the same extent as implied in your post. I will disagree.
Being a resident of Karachi myself, I can vouch for Pashtun domination on the local transport system, now when did that originate is questionable.
Afghan refugees arrived in Karachi by the droves in early eighties and this happened even with the stated restrictions in place. Once again, this is based on eye-witness account.
Muhajirs are'nt all that devious as implied in your characterization and description of national and provincial events. Sure, they must have made mistakes, but who has'nt? ANP was always looking after Pashtun interest well b4 the arrival of Mqm or Jinnah. Baluch were represented thru various nationalist groups and Sindhis found their voice thru PPP and eventually Sindh nationalist parties which left Muhajirs with no representation, yet the raw end of all central policies in the form of quotas, nationalizations and political marginalization.
Lastly on the quota issue, like I said it created more fissues than alleviate rural problems and u confirm my thoughts by highlighting the rural-urban divide based on ethnicities. Had Bhutto and others opened schools, hospitals, industries in the rural areas, given their peasents a chance in hell there was no need to have quotas just as they have none in Punjab, the province with largest rural percentage of the population. Wud Muhajirs have continued to dominate and strenghten their so-called monopoly? Once agin unfair assumptions and may I say demonization for the sake of argument does not serve justice.
Pakistan has been good to million of its citizens, punjabi, sindhi, pashtun, muhajir and to a limited scale baluchi they have all enjoyed some success and also endured hardships. Its a matter of learning to respect each other and be willing to share, be open to criticism but reject any racism or imposition of ideas, religous tolerance and separation of state and religion.
Now, when you’ve stopped crying, and calmed down, and would like a discussion, then tell me how this quote of yours re
I wonder which Punjabi politicians were responsible for 1971 debacle!