 |
Holding Pakistan TogetherViqar
A. Khan
|
| Articles by Guest Writers Viqar A. Khan is a Chartered Accountant and a tax specialist. He has been writing in newspapers for a few years now. His clear, crisp line of thought and precise expression make reading a pleasure. His previous articles are:-
|
A
fall out of the war of independence of 1857 was a period of
discrimination against the Muslims of Indo-Pak subcontinent. The more
perceptive of the Muslim scholars, Sir Syed Ahmed Khan being the most
prominent, propounded the two nation theory. He believed that the Hindus
and Muslims of India were two distinct nations. This perception was
picked up by Quaid-e-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah in the later part of his
political career. Eventually it crystallized into the formation of a
separate homeland for the Muslims of India. Black’s Law Dictionary 6th Edition describes ‘nation’ as: “a
people, or aggregation of men, existing in the form of an organized
jural society, usually inhabiting a distinct portion of the earth,
speaking the same language, using the same customs, possessing historic
continuity, and distinguished from other like groups by their racial
origin and characteristics, and generally but not necessarily, living
under the same government and sovereignty” You
would notice that ‘religion’ is conspicuously absent from the
ingredients necessary for the formation of a ‘nation’. This
coincidentally is what I perceived. Had religion been a determining
factor then Pakistanis, Egyptians and Libyans would have been one nation
which obviously they are not. The persecution of the Muslims in the post 1857 period saw the necessity that the Muslims of the subcontinent identify themselves as one nation. This identification though correct for its time, lost its significance on the 14th of August 1947. This date saw the creation of a separate state for the Muslims of India. These Muslims were an amalgam of populace speaking different languages having overlapping social values and cultures. However, they were bunched together because of geography, history and religion whereas social values and cultures overlapped with varying degrees. These people were actually various nations living together because of circumstances. By the above logic, Bengalis, Sindhis, Balochis, Pathans and Punjabis are actually various nations living in their respective geographical locations. What we have failed to admit and publicly recognize that apart from the above distinct entities, there are other groups of people which fall within the parameters of a ‘nation’ as described above living in specific geographical locations within Pakistan. The
Urdu speaking migrants presently living in Sindh form a major chunk of
the cosmopolitan cities of Karachi and Hyderabad. Due to years of
alienation by the Sindhi natives, they thought it necessary to group
together and identify their nationhood in the form of MQM. The Southern
belt of Punjab is composed of predominantly Saraiki speaking people who
also fall within the definition of a ‘nation’. Likewise people of
Pothohar region, FATA, Baltistan and northern areas are distinct and
separate entities duly qualified to be classified as ‘nations’. Staying
within certain defined parameters, each human being has the right to
live his life as he wants. As already discussed, Pakistan is a
composition of different ‘nations’ staying together because of
circumstances. Pakistan can easily be divided on major linguistic lines
into separate geographical divisions which may be termed as
‘provinces’. Once these divisions take place, the sense of
alienation currently being felt by ‘minor’ linguistic groups who are
dominated by the ‘major’ ones in the existing geographical
divisions, would cease to exist. For
example, the Urdu speaking areas of Sindh, can be turned into Jinnahpur.
Such a step would change the militant character of MQM. This will help
in the creation of parallel and moderate political platforms wooing
their own kind. This would result in a genuine multiparty representation
for the Urdu speaking people of Jinnahpur and dilute the hegemony of a
single party representation. Fifty years into independence, there is no
justification that people from FATA or northern areas should not be
completely assimilated with the rest of the country. Keeping them in
separate compartments by giving them separate statuses, has crystallized
their alienation and has weakened the federation. The
separate ‘provinces’ as visualized above, of which the existing
‘provinces’ would be a part, should be given enough breathing space
in terms of executive and financial authority to govern themselves. In
the final analysis, Pakistan would be a composition of numerous
‘provinces’. Devolution of authority from the ‘center’ to the
‘provinces’ is a prerequisite for the ‘breathing space’
described above. Vital subjects of defense, foreign affairs,
communication, currency and taxation, etc. may be kept by the center
while the residual subjects should be passed on to the ‘provinces’. The
‘provinces’ would then be independent to form their own laws for all
subjects barring a handful to be kept by the center. For example, one
‘province’ may have capital punishment for supposedly minor offenses
while another ‘province’ may not have the concept of capital
punishment even for the most heinous crime. Naturally a crime against
the ‘state’ and against the ‘province’ would have to be clearly
distinguished. Form of government – The
parliamentary form of government adopted by us seems to have been
influenced from our colonial masters. The head of the party occupying
the majority in the lower house becomes the ‘executive head’. He
then endeavors to locate a rubber stamp ‘head of state’ so that he
may not hinder the executive authority of the chief executive. The chief
executive has a limited choice of selecting his deputies which have to
be from either of the two houses. A highly competent and accomplished
technocrat or a professional, not a member of either of the two houses,
is to be satisfied in the slot of an advisor while deputizing for the
executive head. The above pattern is repeated in the provinces. Why
may I ask the executive head of our country not be elected directly by
the electorate? Why may I ask the executive head has to snoop around for
a benign head of state? Why my I ask the executive head should not be
given the latitude of selecting the best from wherever he may find? Why
may I ask the executive functionaries be dragged time and again to the
parliament to be questioned all the time while discharging their
executive functions? Why may I ask that the legislative functions be not
taken away from the executive functionaries? Why may I ask that the
legislative and executive functions at the highest level be completely
severed? All these questions equally apply to the provincial set ups. It
appears quite in order that the executive head of the state and the
provinces together with their deputies be directly elected. These
executive heads should be completely free in choosing their cabinet
whether from amongst the legislature or outsiders. The members of the
cabinet should not remain the members of the legislative bodies, though
they may be called to explain the bills initiated by them and for some
other limited purposes. Specific committees of the legislative bodies
should be empowered to confirm the cabinet nominees. Bills may either be
initiated by the executive or by the legislative functionaries. In
either case, the bills would have to pass through both houses and obtain
the assent of the executive head to become the law. The executive head
may be empowered with limited veto powers. The system of directly electing the chief executive should also be followed by the local bodies. Here again the legislative and executive functions should be completely severed. The deputies should in turn be confirmed by a select committee of the elected members of the local bodies.
|