This is a good article, the writer is fairly well known and I think respected, and considering the heated nature of some of the arguments recently. I should say this is NOT an ethnic article( for the record I believe the writer is Punjabi), so please don’t start another round of attacks and counter attacks. Discuss on facts not in anger. the issues are one of Democracy and principles versus lotaism and double standards:
People matter
Shafqat Mahmood
The writer is a former Senator and a
former federal and provincial minister
Two events, many miles apart, ring a familiar bell. Bangladesh celebrates another anniversary of its independence. Sindh gets another government, imposed through chicanery and horse trading, denying the majority party its right to rule. In early fifties, the people of East Bengal elected a popular coalition in the provincial election. The Centre imposed Governor’s rule and sent Iskander Mirza to teach the natives a lesson. This time it is not Governor’s rule, although we were close to it had the coup from within not worked. The details of times past and time present maybe different but the essence is the same. Popular choice of the people does not matter or, shorn of all verbiage, people don’t matter.
Is the comparison between Bangladesh and Sindh too gross or too alarmist? Maybe, but those who have been bitten once need to be careful. We are anything but, because we ride rough shod over popular sentiment and feel proud of our accomplishment. We commit daylight robbery in political terms and think that no one has noticed. How many times does it need to be said that people are not stupid. They may not say much and they have no energy - yet – to gather together and create a storm but it happens my friends, it happens.
And it happened to us, in this month of December thirty-one years ago. It happened because we did not care for the people. We did not think that they matter and we thought that we could get away with everything, including murder. There is arrogance about power in Banana Republics that defies comprehension. People who should know better – because they claim to be educated and should at least have some understanding of the forces of history – commit one blunder after another. And the greatest blunder is to ignore the impact of their actions on the people. This is what we did in the past and this is what broke the country apart.
Consider. We decreed that the people of East Pakistan, although in a majority, were equal to minority in the West. We called it parity and to sustain this illusion demolished the provinces in the West and created a one unit. There were loud protests not only from the East but also from the people in the smaller provinces of the West. They said that they had lost their identity and their right to rule themselves. We couldn’t be bothered.
We ignored them and instead lectured everyone, in the East and the West, on virtues of national unity and on the brotherhood of Islam. Our binding force was shared Muslim identity, we were told, and those who spoke of provincial rights or regional cultures or expressed an affinity for their native language were traitors or worse. As usual, we arrogated the definition of patriotism to ourselves and harassed those who did not fit.
Even under these constraints, there was a possibility that the election in 1958 would give some sense of participation to the East and to the defunct smaller provinces in the West. More exciting was the possibility that Suhrawardy, an East Pakistani, might emerge as a consensus leader. This was a scary thought and elections had to be scuttled. This was not easy because the constitution ordained an election. So, this offensive document was also scuttled and martial law imposed.
Again, no one gave a thought to what impact this would have on the people of the smaller provinces and particularly on the people of East Pakistan. Their one chance getting representation through our first democratic election was denied. Military, that assumed power, was largely Punjabi with a smattering of Pashtuns and an occasional Mohajir. East Pakistan was almost unrepresented as were Baochistan and Sindh. No one thought about this because the prevailing mantra was that we are Muslims and that is enough to keep the nation together.
To add to the woes of East Pakistan, Ayub imposed a draconian dictatorship through his henchman Monim Khan and people were left to wonder what they had done to deserve it. Many were tortured and killed to ensure control but it was a pyrrhic victory. Brute force kills individuals but does not change sentiment. A new constitution was imposed arrogating all power to the centre and indirect election introduced to ensure that only the favoured got into the Assemblies. This added insult to injury and the anger continued to simmer.
Next slap on popular sentiment was the Presidential election, which Ayub rigged to ensure his victory. This was also resented in the West but it had a much greater impact in the East because the people had voted overwhelmingly for Mohtarma Fatima Jinnah. When democratic change is not possible, people start to despair or consider other options. There was a great deal of despair in the East and time had come for the people to consider other options.
These were the circumstances that allowed a break away movement to gather momentum. Mujib was a minor leader until he was accused in the Agartala conspiracy case of wanting to break up Pakistan. After this, all the pent up resentment of the people in East Pakistan started to focus on Mujib and he became a catalyst for their anger. When history and circumstances gave them an opportunity in the 1970 election, they voted overwhelmingly in his favour.
Much is made of the end game which led to the break up of the country, but the factors leading up to it are ignored. The simple fact is that had there been no popular resentment in the East, someone like Mujib with his secessionist platform, would never have emerged. He was made possible by a long history of deceit and chicanery and by pure arrogance of power in dealing with the people of East Pakistan.
Marx says that historical change take place through slow accretion of events leading up to a great leap. The events after the election were the great leap but what we had done to the people in the East since 1947 was the slow accretion of events that made the leap possible. Of course, Yahya could still have handled events better if he was not greedy for personal power and history may have been different if Bhutto had not collaborated with him. But, by focusing on the last tragic year is to miss the point. Great historical change does not take place suddenly. It is the culmination of a long process. If we want to learn anything about the breakup of Pakistan, it would be much more instructive to study the twenty-four years leading up to it.
This painful period of our history is being dredged up because I see similar mistakes being made again. Referendums and elections are being rigged. Popular parties are being denied the right to rule. Forward blocs are being created. Opponents are being harassed through NAB while those accused of criminal acts are being praised and rewarded. There is no sanctity to the constitution let alone to rules and procedures. Everything is possible, everything permissible.
Arrogance of power is in full flow. The people are being ignored as if they don’t matter or don’t understand what is going on. Rulers have created a world of make believe and they think that everyone lives in it. This is a dangerous mistake. People are watching and they know exactly what is going on. Let us not play foolishly with their sentiments and emotions. We have paid for it once and we will not survive if we have to pay for it again.