Bengalis, anti-imperialist and freedom loving people by inheritance, were the real force behind the creation of Pakistan. Sindhis, led by G M Syed, were the only people who passed a resolution in favour of Pakistan in their assembly and Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan, the popular leader of Pakhtuns, despite being averse to the idea of Pakistan, offered full and unconditional cooperation once it was created. But they were all insulted, banned and barred from playing their role. Still they, at least during the early years of Pakistan’s existence, tried to make Pakistan a functioning democracy, a secular, enlightened and peace loving country and a sovereign state in the real sense, free of external influence and interference. Amongst them, G M Syed was more vocal in his views and more specific in his ideas, which he put in writing before the people, the ultimate sovereign, and tried to implement them in conjunction with his like-minded colleagues. Most of his writings were banned and most of the time he was put behind bars or under house arrest, making his views and ideas inaccessible, particularly in the face of a one-sided, state-sponsored barrage of propaganda. Let us quote here a few pieces of his writings/speeches, just to have an inkling of his thoughts. While presenting, along with Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan, Abdul Samad Khan Achakzai and other friends, the political programme of Pakistan People’s Organisation in 1948, he said: “…Nor can the stability of a state be permanently ensured until and unless its constituent units feel that they enjoy full and unabridged freedom to fulfil their own genius. Any sense of injustice or undue encroachment of the centre will only make a unit lukewarm and even hostile to the progress of the state as a whole. The democratic formula for eradicating this inner conflict and clash of various units is to have Pakistan as a union of free socialist republics, in which each republic enjoys full right of equality and self-determination. “…In the modern world particularly, such a state (based on communalism) will instead of serving the cause of universal peace or human progress, tend only to accentuate division, disruption and the consequential conflict and misery. “…Pakistan should be a completely independent state drawing its strength and inspiration from its own people and keeping itself scrupulously free from the encroaching influence of those imperialist powers whose interest it is to foment the present atmosphere of war-mongering and world domination.” Addressing the world peace conference at Vienna in 1952, he said: “…Many of people who are mustering strength in the name of religion believe that we should do away with Anglo-Roman judicial system and replace it with obsolete mediaeval jurisprudence. According to that the thief will have his hands amputated, the fornicator will be stoned to death and the people with different views on religion will be put to the sword. “…In order to secure the leadership of the world and domination of Islam they will propagate the jihad and the Muslims will be converted into a jingoistic and chauvinistic society. “…I would like to emphasise to delegates of this conference in general and from the UK and America in particular, that the efforts of the American and British governments who want to unite the Muslims on the basis of their so-called religious beliefs are fraught with dangerous possibilities. “…It is painful for me also that many of our Muslim countries are being made to sell bases for the armies of imperialist powers. What consequences will result from these commitments made by our government are not difficult to foresee. Our countries will lie helpless with the armies of foreign powers on their soil and their national sovereignty will vanish.” These few excerpts from two of G M Syed’s hundreds of books, write-ups and speeches show the vision and commitment the nationalists had for the future of Pakistan and peace and prosperity of the region. Anticipating the dangers inherent in the policies of the rulers, they had warned not only the establishment of Pakistan but the world imperial powers of the consequences, which are exactly what we are facing today, i.e. confrontation of the highest order among different constituent units and between units and the Centre, religious extremism resulting in terrorism and civil war and foreign powers’ interference, undermining sovereignty of the Pakistani state, rendering it a helpless spectator. Now the question is who is responsible for the chaotic situation we have plunged into. There is a simple rule: more power, more responsibility. The establishment, comprising the military and civil bureaucracy belonging to Punjab and Mohajirs (refugees from India) have held absolute power over the state apparatus and complete hegemony over ‘national interests’, so much so that they did not allow the elected representatives of the Bengali and Baloch people (elected in the only free and fair elections of 1970) any say in national affairs, regarding them Muslims of inferior quality and dubbing them ‘unpatriotic’. So whatever scenario we are witnessing and whatever predicament we are in, the ‘patriotic’ rulers bear the responsibility for all that. And now what is or should be the way forward in order to retrieve the situation, save the future from catastrophes and tragedies and make the region amenable to peace, progress and prosperity? First and foremost is that the ‘real’ rulers and their ‘accomplices’, who have always rejected reason and rationale and ruled through killing and coercion and made the gun the deciding factor, should confess their failures and concede their wrongs. Then they should apologise publicly to the people, to history, and particularly to those political leaders, intellectuals, writers, poets, journalists and workers who were condemned and victimised for telling the truth and were crucified at the altar of their (the rulers’) flawed policies and self-defeating concepts. And the next natural step would be, and should be, to refer to the ideologies of and strategies advanced by the leaders of oppressed nations. There should be a frank discussion and debate on and an objective analysis of both the policies ‘proposed’ and the policies pursued on the basis of the results we have achieved. Only such an approach can enable us to make amends and put things on the right track that can lead the people of the region to peace, progress and prosperity. (Concluded) The writer is vice chairman, Jeay Sindh Mahaz. He can be reached at junejo.law@hotmail.com