It is for this reason that I consider a democratically elected
provincial assembly as the ideal barometer to judge whether this ethnic
labelling is merely jest or entrenched ethnic hostility. And whether the
supposed "contempt" and "hatred" of the Pashto-speaking electoral base is
confirmed by the attitude of their elected leaders. But, as mentioned in my last
article, Pakhtun-majority assemblies in the province have had no qualms about
electing Hindko-speaking chief ministers. Not only that, the former NWFP has had
more chief ministers from Hindko-speaking Hazara Division than from any other
division of the province. Even Pakhtun nationalists have accepted Hindko
speakers as their leaders.
The champions of the Pakhtunkhwa cause on televised debates, ANP
stalwarts Haji Adeel and Bashir Bilour, are both Hindko speakers from Peshawar.
This evidence only highlights the harmony and bonding between these two
communities. The sour experiences of a few individuals cannot be used as proof
of the case being otherwise, especially when the evidence in support of the
harmony is undeniable and massive. -- Imran Khan
By Imran Khan
In his article of May 18, Mr Kashif Jahangiri repeats his claim that
the current movement for Hazara province is a reaction to the "contempt" shown
by Pakhtuns to Hazarewals. As I mentioned in my earlier article, this labelling
is not unique to Pakhtuns and Hazarewals, and it's also not one-sided.
While Mr Jahangiri bemoans the label of "Punjabi" and the contempt
contained in it, I would remind him of labels like "Khocha," "Akhrot" and
"Phairay Pathan" that are tagged on Pakhtuns by Hindko speakers. Of course, I
speak of my own experience, and I certainly have not met every Hindkowan in
Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa to ascertain whether they think of Pakhtuns as mentally
deficient lower-life forms. I also cannot conclude on the basis of my personal
experience whether these comments end at banter or are signs of deep-seated hate
in the hearts of Hindkowans. Any conclusion that I draw based on my own
experience and anecdotes from my friends and family would be marred by
subjectivity. Although the conclusion and evidence would make sense to me, it
would definitely not be good enough to be used in a debate such as
this.
It is for this reason that I consider a democratically elected
provincial assembly as the ideal barometer to judge whether this ethnic
labelling is merely jest or entrenched ethnic hostility. And whether the
supposed "contempt" and "hatred" of the Pashto-speaking electoral base is
confirmed by the attitude of their elected leaders. But, as mentioned in my last
article, Pakhtun-majority assemblies in the province have had no qualms about
electing Hindko-speaking chief ministers. Not only that, the former NWFP has had
more chief ministers from Hindko-speaking Hazara Division than from any other
division of the province. Even Pakhtun nationalists have accepted Hindko
speakers as their leaders.
The champions of the Pakhtunkhwa cause on televised debates, ANP
stalwarts Haji Adeel and Bashir Bilour, are both Hindko speakers from Peshawar.
This evidence only highlights the harmony and bonding between these two
communities. The sour experiences of a few individuals cannot be used as proof
of the case being otherwise, especially when the evidence in support of the
harmony is undeniable and massive.
Ethnic discrimination and contempt that is of any consequence is more
than just verbal. Reaction to labelling and name-calling subsides as one ages,
and is an essential part of one's growing up. Only when this labelling is
accompanied by a history of bloodshed and economic exploitation does it have the
potential to mobilise whole communities, ethnic groups or races into action. For
instance, the term "Nigger" does not just refer to the skin colour of a race,
but has a history of bondage, slavery and exploitation that makes it a slur for
those against whom it is used. Its counterpart "Red Neck," also a racist slur,
does not carry the same venom as the "N-Word" because of the different
experience of those it is applied to.
The Bengalis, despite being an outright majority in united Pakistan,
were treated in a despicable manner in Pakistan. President Ayub Khan's reference
to them as "rats" (for which he later apologissed) was based on the "martial
race" concept. Our Bengali brothers were denied of many of their constitutional
and economic rights. For instance, their representation in the army was
negligible, a mere five per cent of all the commissioned officers in the
Pakistani army in 1965, according to the Library of Congress Country
Study.
The majority in East Pakistan received a much smaller share even in
development spending. If one is to divide the development expenditure of East
Pakistan over that of West Pakistan, then, from 1950 to 1970, the Eastern Wing
received just 40 per cent of the amount that was spent on West Pakistan. In
other words, for every Rs100 spent in the minority West Pakistan, Rs40 were
spent in the majority East Pakistan (source: the Planning Commission of
Pakistan).
I completely agree with Mr Jahangiri when he says that the treatment
of Bengalis by West Pakistanis was too distasteful to be compared with the
communities featuring in our discussion. It is also for this lack of bloodshed
and a lack of economic exploitation between Hindkowans and Pakhtuns that the
case presented by Mr Jahangiri does not hold against rational
scrutiny.
I also agree with Mr Jahangiri when he says that the dismissive
approach adopted by West Pakistan in dealing with the genuine demands regarding
the Bengali language was one of the key reasons for the creation of Bangladesh.
Sadly, this dismissive approach was not limited to Bengali and was adopted in
the renaming of NWFP as well.
The officialdom of East Pakistan was also resisted by the Bihari
minority at that time. But, as Mr Jahangiri would agree, the dismissal of that
legitimate demand was a wrong incurred by the Bengalis, a wrong that cannot be
justified by the citing of the Biharis' opposition. Similarly, the minority
opposition to the name Pakhtunkhwa should not have been used to incur a similar
wrong on the Pakhtuns.
One has to acknowledge the fact that the name Pakhtunkhwa has been
approved by the assemblies of the province in question, both with and without
ANP majority, and thus is much more than a mere "unreasonable" demand by Pakhtun
nationalists. Furthermore, the name Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa is a result of a series
of compromises on the part of those who had been demanding "Pakhtunkhwa."
One of the earliest criticisms of the abbreviation "NWFP" was done by
the founding fathers of Pakistan. The historic 1933 pamphlet Now or Never, which
called for the creation of Pakistan, refers to "Afghania Province." Chaudhry
Rehmat Ali decried the name NWFP by saying "It is wrongful, because it
suppresses the social entity of these people."
The rejection of "Afghania" (the first "a" in "Pakistan") was
followed by the rejection of "Pakhtunistan," and then "Pakhtunkhwa," both names
acceptable to and demanded by a majority of the province, but denied due to
minority opposition. Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa was actually a suggestion from those who
opposed the hyphenated name and its acceptance and showed magnanimity on the
part of the Pakhtuns. But their criticism, rather than appreciation for their
agreeing to it, is mind-boggling, to say the least.
The demand for smaller provinces is a justified demand, for which our
Constitution does have provisions. These four provinces were created to
administer the population back in 1947. Given the massive rise in our numbers
since then, the creation of smaller provinces makes sense even on an
administrative level.
But, unlike Mr Jahangiri, I would not dub the Sooba Hazara movement
as a reaction to the label "Punjabiyaan." I would not define this outpouring on
the streets and calls for complete shutter-downs as a reaction to mere
name-calling. Furthermore, there are Awans, Gujjars, Abbasis and Jatts in Hazara
who do not have a Pakhtun lineage and for whom the "denial of true identity"
argument used by Mr Jahangiri, does not hold. Given that, I am confused as to
what Mr Jahangiri means when he says "...it is the rejection of the identity of
Hazarewals that is being exploited to flare up emotions." How is the slur
"Punjabiyaan" a rejection of the identity of Awans, Gujars, Jatts, and other
non-Pakhtun Hazarewals?
There is a fair chance that for the campaigners of the Sooba Hazara
movement, getting a province means a true realisation of their identity, which
is neither Pakhtun nor Punjabi, but Hazaraewal. Maybe they feel that with their
own separate province they would be able to get a higher level of development
and prosperity. More power to them if that is the case.
A non-violent and peaceful democratic struggle is the only way for
the achievement of their goals. Their efforts would be a fine addition to the
history of democratic struggles in Pakistan, and would make this country a
stronger federation, as well as a more mature democracy.
The writer is an economist working in Islamabad. Email:
imran.khan.hks @gmail.com
Source: The news, Pakistan
5:32 AM
Sultan Shahin
0 comments:
Post a Comment