By Dr. I. Kamal, California
In some letters published recently in newspapers it appears that some protagonists of more provinces in Pakistan have espoused this cause for the wrong reasons. In the twenty-first century, ideological concerns and second-guessing the intent of the Lahore Resolution of March 23, 1940 cannot be used to justify changes in the status quo.
The main problem with the current demarcation of the provinces in Pakistan is that it legitimizes ethnic divisions in the country, and hinders the forging of a national identity. One of the biggest impediments to progress and development in Pakistan has been its conversion into a multi-national state, with its major components at loggerheads. During the sixties, Ibn-e-Insha had lamented that in Pakistan there was a Sindhi nation, a Punjabi nation, a Bengali nation (alas!), all kinds of nations except a Pakistani nation. The poet must be turning in his grave to learn that there is a talk of even a Mohajir nation. (At best, each of these so-called nations is only half a nation, because the other half is either in India or Afghanistan!) The concept of multiple nationalities is a negation of the two-nation theory on the basis of which Pakistan was founded. Its logical conclusion is civil war or disintegration, as we have seen in the Balkans and the former Soviet Union, and as Pakistan learnt to its own sorrow in the case of Bangladesh. As the poet Khalil Gibraan had pointed out:
“Woe unto the nation that is split into numerous fragments, Each fragment considering itself to be a nation!”
The best way to get rid of the evil of multiple nationalities in Pakistan is to remove the ethnic connotation from the administrative divisions of the country. The Quaid-i-Azam had described the existing demarcation and the consequent provincialism as “a relic of the old administration”. He had said, “We are now all Pakistanis - not Baluchis, Pathans, Sindhis, Bengalis, Punjabis and so on....and we should be proud to be known as Pakistanis and nothing else.” (Quaid-i-Azam Speaks, June 15, 1948, Published by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Govt. of Pakistan, 1951).
The re-demarcation of provincial boundaries should be based on administrative divisions small enough so that democracy can be felt at the grassroots. Such delineation already exists in the form of the twelve former Divisions of West Pakistan under One Unit. I lived in Pakistan during the days of One Unit and distinctly remember that a sense of oneness had begun to emerge in West Pakistan, in spite of the hue and cry from provincial-minded politicians who were distressed at the break-up of their little empires. One Unit failed because of the true or imagined fear of domination by the Punjab. A setup where sixty per cent of the population lives in one province is unwieldy, and is bound to raise feelings of insecurity in the smaller provinces (in contrast, the population of California, the largest state of the USA, is only fifteen per cent of the country’s population). Many of the political squabbles in recent years emerged because of meddling by the federal government to enforce and strengthen its party’s rule in Punjab, the most populous state.
Restoring the former Divisions of West Pakistan as provinces or states would avoid controversy and hassle, and provide all the benefits of One Unit without the disadvantage of the fear of domination by the Punjab. There is no need to get carried away and propose twenty-six provinces. This would impose an unnecessary burden on the financial resources of the country, because each province would require its own governor, provincial assembly and administrative set up.
Each of the former twelve divisions has enough resources to develop and prosper. For example, the two divisions of Baluchistan, considered to be the most disadvantaged, have Sui gas, over which they should be given full control, and a long coastline, which can be developed with port cities and tourist resorts. The new demarcation would not detract from the heritage of any ethno-linguistic group, which did not suffer any cultural shock when the Hindu component was withdrawn in 1947, nor when the groups lived under One Unit for fifteen years.
The new provinces should have the right to impose and collect their own taxes and spend the revenues within their own boundaries. As in the USA, government and taxation should be at three levels: municipal or district, state and federal. This will avoid squabbles, which invariably occur over the allocation and release of funds by the federal government under the NFC awards.
From contemporary history, we have two examples of administrative divisions within a federal setup: the former Soviet Union, where the divisions were based on “nationalities”, and the United States, where the states are based on common-sense administrative grounds, with boundaries generally made up of straight lines. The Soviet Union disintegrated, while the USA is one of the most united and stable democracies in the world. If Pakistan is to prosper all talk of nations and nationalities must stop, and all provisions that lead to the perpetuation of such ideas must be abolished.