The 1970 election had given birth to controversies that finally had led the opposing wills clash in streets. This was what neither the policy-makers nor the intelligentsia of West Pakistan had thought about. When majority separated its way after suffering a lot at the hands of minority, nation was left hopeless and dejected. Now when Pakistan is making preparation to hold 'free and fair' elections in 2008, gloom and sadness takes hold of the land. Like in 1970, the government and political parties fail to understand now that some serious issues are still pending and will have to be settled down once and for all.
The creation of One-Unit was definitely a product of the tussle of smaller nations against the larger one. Bengalis were in majority. They were more numerous than all other ethnic groups of Pakistan. People on this side of the divide feared that if given it a free hand, the majority could become brute and repressive. The strategy was to say no to any proposal, as the constitution was in the making, no matter what it implied. Bengalis would demand their share pleading the population criteria; the West Pakistanis would talk about parity. This was the problem from day one. This was the issue when elections of 1970 were held.
The competition was not allowed. Democracy was not given a chance. No industry flourished there. They demanded recognition of their language as the lingua franca of the state. They demanded distribution of national resources and jobs on equal basis. Bengalis wanted unicameral legislature and provincial autonomy. The minority rejected these demands. It was able to corner the majority, for military was on its back. Majority rejected the minority, finally, in 1971. The eastern wing was lost.
While the efforts to dislodge majority was on and the One-Unit operative, there was resentment against Lahore that had become the provincial capital. The constituent regions would resent to be identified with Lahore and what it stood for. Sindhis, Balochs and Pathans would raise their voice against it while insisting on their distinct linguistic and cultural identities. They would demand to be treated as nations with their right to enjoy autonomy in their specific geographical areas. They demanded the demarcation of the provincial boundaries anew. They would reject the One Unit plan and also its clause that its demise would restore the federal units that had been merged into one.
There were not the five languages in Pakistan as was projected in 1960s. As the research of a veteran linguist, Dr. Tariq Rahman, has proved, there were more than fifty languages instead.
Culturally they were different from Punjabis, Sindhis, Balochs and Pathans. They had their distinct identities evolved through a long historical process. This was well known to the people that wanted to re-organize the western wing of Pakistan on the basis of national identities.
The ideal solution of the problem would have been either not to recognize any of the languages and the cultural identities associated with Pakistan or give a rational consideration to the issue. But One Unit was dissolved and the four provinces with their particular identities were created. There was protest that was ignored. The dissident voices were silenced through the methods that had been used against Bengalis. Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, whose party had won majority in national assembly, presided over the affairs of the country. He assumed two posts simultaneously. He was the president of Pakistan and the Chief Martial Law Administrator as well.
Since Bhutto was commanding majority in Centre and the success of his political party had heavily hinged on its performance in Punjab and Sindh, he did not pay attention as to what would be the consequences if the One Unit were done inappropriately. The question was legal as well as moral. He evaded this question to the point of ignorance. An opportunity to create new and modern state was lost. A pluralist society, due to its geographical features and ethnic composition, was pushed into controversies again. The status quo was maintained and the solution was sought in the strong center, again. Force, not wisdom, was considered as the means to handle diversities together.
Zulfikar Ali Bhutto hurried for the passage of the constitution giving little attention to the fact that the situation was far different from the one prevailing during and before the clamping of the One Unit plan. Hazaras had insisted on different identity and had no reason to live with Pathans who were demanding for renaming of their province as Pakhtoonkhwa. Multanis had aspired for the restoration of their provincial status that had been ended due to its occupation by Ranjit Singh. Bahawalpur had its own case. The One Unit plan had promised restoration of its provincial status but it was merged into Punjab at the end of the day.
In Sindh, Karachites had developed a different identity from rest of the Sindh. Dominated by the Urdu immigrants and shifting of the capital to Islamabad, had yielded feeling about a distinct territorial entity. As the later developments would prove, the consequences of not respecting the concerns of the people could be as grave as language riots. The Urdu speaking population resisted the moves of the provincial government to introduce Sindhi as medium of instruction.
Khairpur was a state in Sindh dominated by non-Sindhi speakers. But Sindhi nationalists laid claim on it insisting that Talpurs, the rulers, were invaders and that the area had traditionally belonged to Sindh. Now it is part of Sindh and according to a linguist of Bahawalpur, Dr. Nasrullah Khan Nasir, Saraiki will be eliminated in a region where it is now the mother tongue of the majority.
The experience of last four decades has proved that the administrative division of 1970's has brought miseries to the polity and compounded the problems of the people. Provincialism has prevented the country from treading the path of peace and prosperity, widened social inequalities and proved a divisive factor in country's politics. And the communities that have got well preserved their ancient and modern rights as ethnic groups of Pakistan, even at the cost of others, lack the will as well as the courage to face the reality with a bold face. They will talk about more autonomy but will show little commitment with democracy.
As the memoirs of Bhutto and the revelations of his colleagues suggest, he was duly interested in correcting the wrongs of the past. He was in hurry to secure one-third majority and decide the matters through parliament. So he announced elections ahead of the time. He never succeeded. He was hanged. Her daughter, too, was murdered when she vowed to complete the mission of her father.
Should Pakistan be a pluralist society? The states that have recognized their diversities and have projected their pluralist character are among the most respected states of the world. Pakistan too has to read the path of peace and prosperity or become a theocratic, and consequently, a failed state. The best way is to look at the matter of administrative problems of the country from the position of 1970.
It should not be surprising that the constitution has to be written a new. Either it has to recognize ethnic and cultural diversity or deny them all. The third way, that seems more feasible, lies in recognizing all identities but base the administrative division on geographical facts and economic feasibility of the proposed unit — hilly and coastal areas, floodplains and deserts are the realities to be taken into consideration.
The resulting provincial boundaries may not be different than those being aspired by the major ethnic/linguistic groups of the country but it matters a lot as on what basis these boundaries are drawn. The status quo is definitely unacceptable. It is the main hurdle for national cohesion as well as the survival of state in global age.
As far as elections are concerned, they cannot be the panacea to the ills of the nation. Had it been so, the 1970 elections would have put Pakistan on the path of stability. Had the politicians waited for a while and spent enough time to develop a rational and consensus constitution, we would not have to go back to square one, again and again.
