Demand for new provinces
Courtesy:Dr Muhammad Azam
Movements for new provinces are becoming increasingly visible. Voices for new provinces continue to be raised more frequently and more vigorously. Such voices are supported by some quarters but also rejected by others. Some of the politicians as well as political parties are caught in a dilemma. They seem to be confused on how to respond to demands for new provinces. PML-N can be seen at the top of this list.
What is interesting to note is very strange arguments are coming to the fore. To begin with, more provinces can be made on administrative but not on ethno-linguistic basis. The argument sounds primitive and unformed and does not seem to carry any logic. Politicians having this stance look very naïve. Is it not a reality that all of the existing provinces have strong ethno-linguistic identities? Major ethnic communities of Punjab, Sindh, Balochistan, and Khyber-Pakhtunkha are Punjabi, Sindhi, Balochi, and Pukhtuns. Furthermore, major languages of the four provinces are Punjabi, Sindhi, Balochi, and Pushto. So, names of the four provinces unquestionably refer to, before anything else, their major ethnic communities and languages.
Same is the case with Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan comprising Kashmiri and Balti majority communities whose major languages carry the same names respectively. Having a glance beyond the national boundaries one can see the long list of countries with their names signifying their ethno-linguistic dimensions and outlook. In Europe, states of Germany, France, and Denmark, for example, consist of German, French, and Danish ethnic populations. And, their major languages are also German, French, and Danish. Likewise, Central Asian states of Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Kirghizstan and others, and many of the Asian countries including Turkey, China, Japan, Russia, and Malaysia are also examples of the same omnipresent political reality. It simply means that ethnicity and language have been basic factors shaping political action and agenda over the centuries and millennia, both at the national and international levels. Statements and stances negating the ethno-linguistic basis lack in realization and acceptance of the significance of ethnicity and language in the sociopolitical aspects of human life and society. The stance, in reality, alludes to the fact that their holders are intensely oblivious to efficacy and practicality of ethno-linguistic characteristics in the administration and organization of political communities around the world. How would the politicians, who repudiate ethno-linguistic basis for new provinces, like to respond to questions like: if all of the existing provinces are acceptable to them despite their strong ethno-linguistic foundations why the ethno-linguistic factors should be discarded while responding to the demands for new provinces? Why do they not challenge or reject the names and territorial boundaries of their respective provinces that so conspicuously exhibit their ethno-linguistic attributes and distinctions?
Is it not astonishing that the PML-N chief claims that Pakistan’s security and integrity will be damaged if new provinces are created on linguistic or ethnic basis? The question is, how? How does it pose challenges to Pakistan’s security and integrity? If the ethno-linguistic foundations and identities of the existing provinces do not pose challenges to security and integrity of the country, on what logic this alarmist claim is based? Why don’t we learn a lesson from our next-door neighbor India? In the beginning it had only seven states compared to 36 that it now has. And most, if not all, of the new Indian states were created along the demands based on ethnic and linguistic lines. Has it damaged India’s security and integrity? No, rather the process of carving out new states has strengthened its federation.
Keeping in view the purpose of modern-age social contracts, none of the political parties should oppose demands for new provinces. The reason is simple that by having their demands of a new province met by the state, concerned communities turn to own the state and system. They cannot ignore the point that the state has fulfilled their cardinal demand. Thus, they feel a newborn love for the federation as they find themselves a step closer to it. If truth be told regional political parties and individuals exercising power in the provincial capitals feel perturbed and insecure on hearing demands for new provinces. In other words, provincial political leadership is the major opposing force to such demands. Without exception, antagonism towards division of their respective provinces expressed by all of the chief ministers sufficiently explains this truth. It may be the only point on which the quadruplet is united irrespective of the association with regional or national level political parties.
One should not, however, lose sight of the fact that if, on the one hand, PML-N is unhappy on the idea of dividing Punjab into two or more provinces, on the other, it has played a leading role in institutionalizing the demands for new provinces. First of all, it formed a committee comprising senior party members. And more recently, it has asked the federal government for formulation of a national commission on new provinces. Some of the regional politicians urge for taking historical facts also into consideration regarding the matter of provincial boundaries and ask for shifting certain cities from one province to others. It, again, sounds to be a far cry. History, undoubtedly, is of utmost importance. However, it cannot be and should not be adhered to at the cost of a nation’s present and future. Human beings, societies and nations live in the present and plan and prepare for a promising future. They should learn lessons from history but, at the same time, dynamism requires a nation to pay more attention to the nature of problems that they face now rather than remaining caught in the past. By living in the past, they would destroy their present and darken their future.
What should be the pivotal point for discussion and debate on more provinces? The foremost consideration must be welfare and well-being of the concerned people. If they can make progress and improve their lives, new provinces must be formed. Ethnic or linguistic cleavages should not become a hurdle in the path of peace and prosperity of a community. If millions of people living in a particular area make a unified demand regarding their political rights and their political status in the national political structure, it may not necessarily be wrong. Those who are in the helm of the affairs are obliged to address the political and economic grievances of all the communities living within the national boundaries.
What is interesting to note is very strange arguments are coming to the fore. To begin with, more provinces can be made on administrative but not on ethno-linguistic basis. The argument sounds primitive and unformed and does not seem to carry any logic. Politicians having this stance look very naïve. Is it not a reality that all of the existing provinces have strong ethno-linguistic identities? Major ethnic communities of Punjab, Sindh, Balochistan, and Khyber-Pakhtunkha are Punjabi, Sindhi, Balochi, and Pukhtuns. Furthermore, major languages of the four provinces are Punjabi, Sindhi, Balochi, and Pushto. So, names of the four provinces unquestionably refer to, before anything else, their major ethnic communities and languages.
Same is the case with Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan comprising Kashmiri and Balti majority communities whose major languages carry the same names respectively. Having a glance beyond the national boundaries one can see the long list of countries with their names signifying their ethno-linguistic dimensions and outlook. In Europe, states of Germany, France, and Denmark, for example, consist of German, French, and Danish ethnic populations. And, their major languages are also German, French, and Danish. Likewise, Central Asian states of Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Kirghizstan and others, and many of the Asian countries including Turkey, China, Japan, Russia, and Malaysia are also examples of the same omnipresent political reality. It simply means that ethnicity and language have been basic factors shaping political action and agenda over the centuries and millennia, both at the national and international levels. Statements and stances negating the ethno-linguistic basis lack in realization and acceptance of the significance of ethnicity and language in the sociopolitical aspects of human life and society. The stance, in reality, alludes to the fact that their holders are intensely oblivious to efficacy and practicality of ethno-linguistic characteristics in the administration and organization of political communities around the world. How would the politicians, who repudiate ethno-linguistic basis for new provinces, like to respond to questions like: if all of the existing provinces are acceptable to them despite their strong ethno-linguistic foundations why the ethno-linguistic factors should be discarded while responding to the demands for new provinces? Why do they not challenge or reject the names and territorial boundaries of their respective provinces that so conspicuously exhibit their ethno-linguistic attributes and distinctions?
Is it not astonishing that the PML-N chief claims that Pakistan’s security and integrity will be damaged if new provinces are created on linguistic or ethnic basis? The question is, how? How does it pose challenges to Pakistan’s security and integrity? If the ethno-linguistic foundations and identities of the existing provinces do not pose challenges to security and integrity of the country, on what logic this alarmist claim is based? Why don’t we learn a lesson from our next-door neighbor India? In the beginning it had only seven states compared to 36 that it now has. And most, if not all, of the new Indian states were created along the demands based on ethnic and linguistic lines. Has it damaged India’s security and integrity? No, rather the process of carving out new states has strengthened its federation.
Keeping in view the purpose of modern-age social contracts, none of the political parties should oppose demands for new provinces. The reason is simple that by having their demands of a new province met by the state, concerned communities turn to own the state and system. They cannot ignore the point that the state has fulfilled their cardinal demand. Thus, they feel a newborn love for the federation as they find themselves a step closer to it. If truth be told regional political parties and individuals exercising power in the provincial capitals feel perturbed and insecure on hearing demands for new provinces. In other words, provincial political leadership is the major opposing force to such demands. Without exception, antagonism towards division of their respective provinces expressed by all of the chief ministers sufficiently explains this truth. It may be the only point on which the quadruplet is united irrespective of the association with regional or national level political parties.
One should not, however, lose sight of the fact that if, on the one hand, PML-N is unhappy on the idea of dividing Punjab into two or more provinces, on the other, it has played a leading role in institutionalizing the demands for new provinces. First of all, it formed a committee comprising senior party members. And more recently, it has asked the federal government for formulation of a national commission on new provinces. Some of the regional politicians urge for taking historical facts also into consideration regarding the matter of provincial boundaries and ask for shifting certain cities from one province to others. It, again, sounds to be a far cry. History, undoubtedly, is of utmost importance. However, it cannot be and should not be adhered to at the cost of a nation’s present and future. Human beings, societies and nations live in the present and plan and prepare for a promising future. They should learn lessons from history but, at the same time, dynamism requires a nation to pay more attention to the nature of problems that they face now rather than remaining caught in the past. By living in the past, they would destroy their present and darken their future.
What should be the pivotal point for discussion and debate on more provinces? The foremost consideration must be welfare and well-being of the concerned people. If they can make progress and improve their lives, new provinces must be formed. Ethnic or linguistic cleavages should not become a hurdle in the path of peace and prosperity of a community. If millions of people living in a particular area make a unified demand regarding their political rights and their political status in the national political structure, it may not necessarily be wrong. Those who are in the helm of the affairs are obliged to address the political and economic grievances of all the communities living within the national boundaries.
Comments
Post a Comment