Pakistan under its Ethnic Shadows

Re Mantolives #1:

Matolives writes ``.... there was aberration it was the inclusion of East Bengal in Pakistan and that has since been corrected. Remember the founders of Pakistan were more than ready to concede an independent Bengali Republic... ``

The aberration that you refer to is entirely dellusional - It would be the other way around .... PAkistan would probable constitue the state of Bengal.... and what today constitutes Pakistan would be under the heel of Indian suzeranity... Bengal supplied over half the leadership of the League, not to mentrion a disproptionate amount of intellectual capital and muscle. Even today Bangladesh has a stronger sense of its Islamic identity and its roots than most in Pakistan do. Unfortunately the vast majority of Pakistani founders were of Bengali origin - it would be stupid to think that they would create Pakistan for pakistan`s sake...- The secondary and teritary ranks of Muslim League muslim was disproptionately from Bengal ( East/West).


The perception of the authors is correct that most Pakistanis ( and this is amply evident on the chowk ) tend to think myopically in terms of ethnic, linguistic or clannish spheres. This malaise is so common that even in official Government and military circles ethnicity plays a disproptoionately substantial role than in INdian officialdom......

You see the genesis of pakistan now taking places in multi-cultural cities of Islamabad and Karachi where migration and inter-marriage is breaking down old ethnic and linguistic molds particularly in the upwardly mobile classes.... The working classes still remain virtually segregrated into ethnic ghettos even in these multi-cultural cities.... Ironically the demagogery that permeates the fabric of Pakistani culture is evidenced in the microcasm of the only two cosmopolitan bastions of Pakistani society ...( A punjabi born in Karchi denigrates his more provinical rural counterparts with the same vigor as the Mohajir does to his Indian muslim cousins) .....

Conversely the regional identification and parochial attitudes are more pronounced in aristiocracy ( ie the feudals and their army/civilian minions ) in the provincial capitals of Lahore, Quetta, Peshawar and Karachi - ( Perhaps a legacy of the schizophrenic educational foundations) than it is in the hinterland of either one of the provinces - a poor Sindhi/PUnjabi/BAloh/Pathan farmer is more concerned about getting his next week`s meagre nourishment than he is with philosophical and idelogical dellusions......

Part of the Parochial attitiudes of Pakistani culture can be attributed to the earlier British administration which relied on ethnic and linguistic patronage to keep the peace. Even today some 50 + years after indepenedence the recruiting in the Army remains heavily parochial to the northern distyricts of Pindi, Jhang, Jhelum, Sheikupura etc etc ( ie teh Pindi -lahore belt). The Army Generals being the defacto cardinals of the `divine right` papacy hitherto known as CMLA etc etc ..... The parochial attitudes remain unabated ....

I completely agree with Mantolives. Most of our youth, despite disagreements and grievances, remain committed to the idea of Pakistan.

But, wait till our usual middle-aged suspects arrive at Chowk. They will, as usual, play victim or point out the fundamental flaws in the two nation theory. Most of these gentlemen have lived outside Pakistan for too long and are so far removed from the new generation that their cynicism reflects nothing more than their own deep rooted frustrations.

The new generation neither debates the merits of TNT or search for a justification for Pakistan`s existence. It has now become a moot point. For many, Pakistan just ``is``. Period.

Referring to the example of Balochis, first off, its a Logical Fallacy. Judging the whole on a random, unweighted sample from the whole. That said, Yes, the ethinicity problem IS definitely present in Pakistan. Punjabi vs Sindi and in most cases, the Pathan vs everyone else. Heh. Jokes apart, the situation CAN get worse. But uptil now, if God forbid, Pakistan ever goes to war with any country, then provincial discrimination will cease to exist. Unfortunately, it is not hard to imagine any one of the province hestitating to `help` its neigboring province. E.g. Lahore is under attach, Sindh stays on the sideline, blaming the war/infiltration on bad diplomacy by `those bloody Punjabies`. I have a feeling that more people would be pouring in from other Muslim Nations to fight than from Pakistan`s own provinces. That IS bad. But things are looking up, I`d say -- we have a Balochi PM. How effective and how influential, that is a different story.

#3 His Excellency

``India faces a greater identity crisis than Pakistan or France... since in India the fault lines are religious as well as ethnic.``

There is also the ideological facet to the issue. The following article published in Lahore (The Friday Times) hints strongly that it is Pakistan that has exhibited greater crisis than India (or France). Farrukh Saleem`s sentiments in the article seem to mirror those of Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto in ``If I Am Assassinated`` written when he was on death row. It was indeed quite touching to read Bhutto`s (no friend of India) tribute to democracy`s cacophony in India.

---

The Friday Times, Lahore, Pakistan
October 4 - 10, 2002

Why is India intact?
by Farrukh Saleem

[author wonders how India, more diverse than any other country in the world, has survived undivided]

Here are some statistics on India. More than a billion people spread over a land mass of nearly 3 million sq km (the size of four Pakistans); twenty-eight thousand dialects spoken across 28 states and 7 union territories; fourteen official languages including Urdu, Punjabi, Sindhi, Bengali, Kashmiri, Gujarati, Sanskrit, Marathi, Telugu, Tamil, Malayalam, Kannada, Oriya and Assamese.

The population comprises 800 million Hindus, 120 million Muslims, .25 million Parsis, 23 million Christians, 19 million Sikhs, besides Buddhists and Jains. Hindus are further divided among 2,800 unique communities. The caste system has Brahman, Kshatriya, Vashya, Sudra, Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes.The Scheduled Castes are further divided into 450 distinct communities. The Scheduled Tribes have 461 distinct communities and Other Backward Classes are divided into 766 distinct communities.

This is a division like in no other country. All the possible fault-lines exist: religious, ethnic, linguistic, geographic and communal. And these divisions run deep. On top of that, for the past half-century there have been at least nine significant centrifugal movements seeking autonomy, secession or independence from India. Among them: Jammu & Kashmir Liberation Front (JKLF); Dalitstan Organization that seeks ``independence for the Dalits, or black Untouchables, also know as Dravidians, the original inhabitants of the Indian subcontinent before the arrival and dominance of the Caucasian Hindus``; Free Tamil Nadu that ``seeks independence for the Tamil people of south India and perhaps a union with the Tamils of Sri Lanka``; United Liberation Front of Assam that seeks independence of the State of Assam; National Socialist Council of Nagalim that seeks the independence of Nagaland and surrounding areas in the Northeast; Revolutionary People`s Front of Manipur (RPF) that seeks the independence of Manipur; People`s Revolutionary Party of Kangleipak (PREPAK); eighth, there has been a Declaration of Independence of the Sikh Homeland; ninth, National Liberation Front of Tripura (NLFT) in the state of Tripura.

Some of the above secessionist movements continue to allege that India is an example of ``Brahmanist Imperialism`` or that India is becoming a ``de facto Brahman state``. In 1947, many had predicted that India, because of its uncounted diversities, would not be able to survive as a sovereign state. India, it was said back then, would be divided up in several small perhaps more homogenous states. They have all been proven wrong.

The Pakistan the Quaid gave us was practically all Muslim. We had one official language. But, within 24 years of Independence, we managed to lose half of what the Quaid gave us. General Yahya violated the basic principles of democracy and Bangladesh now celebrates March 26 as Independence Day and December 16 as Victory Day.

India is pathetically poor and so is Pakistan. India is the 29th most corrupt country while Pakistan is the 25th most corrupt. India is marginally more literate than we are. India has had 14 prime ministers; Pakistan has had 20. India has had 12 presidents (three were Muslim); Pakistan has had 11. We have had four military governments. India has had none. Pakistan has been split into two. India should have been split into four.

Just what has really kept Brahmans, Sudras, Muslims, Christians, Tamils, Dalits and Assamese together? What has kept India united?

India is democratic we are not. Could that be it?

---

The problems of ethnic versus national identities is not specific to Pakistan. In most multiethnic societies, there are centrifugal forces that are counterbalanced by centripetal forces. The former define nationalism along ethnic, tribal lines whereas the latter define supra-ethnic basis for nationalism (such as religion, communism or secularism).

India itself is an artificial creation of centripetal forces in the sense that it never existed as an entity for most of its history. During the last 5,000 years of its history, India has been a patchwork of small kingdoms for 4,500 years and a state with central government for only 500 years (comprising the Asoka, Mughal and British periods). In fact, this lack of a national identity is the prime reason why RSS/VHP wants Dalits, adivasis, Muslims, Christians, Sikhs and Jains to subsume their identities into Hindu identity.

Ethnic nationalism is a relic of the past. Modern states are usually an amalgam of various ethnic groups and sub-nationalities. Afghan society comprises Pashtuns, Tajiks, Uzbeks and Hazaras. Arabs, Hazaras, Baluchis, Azaris, Turkmen, Kurds and Lurs forms a sizable portion of Iranian society. India is potpourri of Tamils, Punjabis, Marhattas, Bengalis, Biharis, Gujratis,etc. Morrocans, Algerians and Albanians form a sizable portion of Greek and French socities. South Africa itself is a mixture of Zulus and Afrikaaners, etc.

Centrifugal forces thrive in isolation. In a world without railways, TV, radio, roads, newspapers and Internet... it might be possible for an ethnic group to remain insulated from other groups. But this is becoming increasingly difficult in the modern age.

Centripetal forces have modern communications, roads, airliners, railways and media at their disposal. In addition, internal migration for economic reasons also facilitates a cross-pollination of cultures. IMHO, even if centrifugal forces are stronger than centripetal forces, they will eventually succumb in the face of modern technology, communications and economic migration.

In this regard, Pakistan is not different from India, Iran, South Africa, or any other multiethnic state. Centrifugal forces are already weaker than they were in 1947. In the next 50 years, perhaps they will disappear altogether. Identities evolve gradually as centrifugal forces recede. In this respect, India faces a greater identity crisis than Pakistan or France... since in India the fault lines are religious as well as ethnic.

Godot

~~Is Pakistan a viable nation? If one sees the country under the shadows of its ethnic restlessness, the answer cannot be in the affirmative~~

Maybe you are being too alarmist? Ethnic unrest in your nation has not reached the same level as say, religious or caste conflict has in India. If India is a viable nation, with ten times as many ethnicities and languages as Pakistan, so can your nation be. Off the top of my head I would suggest that the key would lie in devolving power to the regions. Often, when there has been ethnic/regional tension in India it has arisen as a result of an overbearing centre.

Ok this will clearly provoke another match...

Dear Godot, for some reason this doom and gloom doesn`t appear to be the case in Pakistan itself... I have travelled around Pakistan, and I have found that people all over associate themselves with Pakistan and are proud to be Pakistani.

Pakistan ka matlab kiya doesn`t need to be answered. It was the result of a constitutional deadlock and like most nationstates in history was an accidental occurence. When you answer Pakistan ka matlab kiya, I am afraid you will create an exclusivist interpretation of that answer... indeed that is the problem we face now... we have tried to define what Pakistan means and we have done a pathetic job at it. Pakistan exists and if it is given a chance, it will continue to exist ... since it has real frontiers, it DOESN`T need ideological ones. If there was aberration it was the inclusion of East Bengal in Pakistan and that has since been corrected. Remember the founders of Pakistan were more than ready to concede an independent Bengali Republic... as Jinnah clearly said that Bengal without Calcutta would be a man without his heart... had that been the case we wouldn`t have to face defeat in 1971..


-YLH