The monolithic features of the constitutions of 1956, 1962 and even 1973 gave rise to a kind of federalism in Pakistan which was non-consociational and was obsessed with the idea of centralization of power. Remoteness of decision making and the lack of participation from the provincial legislative bodies was not an anomaly during this period, neither in the dictatorial times nor in the short-lived democratic rules. This led to the dominance of powerful bureaucratic and the largely- Punjabi elitein the centre, which in the years to come took initiatives which further increased the marginalization of the minority provinces. On the other side of the border, India working under the Nehruvian framework of pluralism displayed all four critical power-sharing elements, which according to Arend Lijphart made it a perfect candidate for a consociational democracy. This provided an environment conduciveto reorganizingstates in India along linguistic lines.
The exclusive and non-accommodating attitude of state in Pakistan thrived for the first 63 years of country’s existence, until the18thAmendment freed the constitution from the coercive alterations made by the military dictators to prolong their rule, gave the power back to the prime minister as the executive of the state and guaranteed overdue provincial autonomy to the provinces. Although the Amendment usually comes under huge criticism for its slow-moving implementation process, lack of administrative decentralization and falling short of utmost provincial autonomy; the Amendment was still a landmark progressive move which subdued the exacerbating secessionist pressures and gave provinces an autonomous chance to legislate on their own. Recent hullabaloo from the PTI-led government to undo the amendment or to make any alteration without the involvement of the provinces would be tantamount to triggering muted secessionist passions.
The current PTI government needs to get off the high horse of authoritarianism and all talk about undoing or altering the Amendment should rather be focused towards removing the difficulties obstructing the complete implementation of amendment
A chronological look into the history of draconian legislations and amendments imposed on minority provinces before the 18thAmendmentwould surely help us reach a conclusion in support of the18thAmendment. The first such attack on the sovereignty of a minority province – Sindh – came when the central government decided to take power away from the provincial government of Sindh in 1948. An absolute disregard was extended to the sacrifices made by the provincial government in catering to the huge influx of migrants arriving in the province of Sindh after partition. The provincial Sindh government of that time not only vacated its Secretariat for government employees but also helped the Federal government financially, which seemed nonplussed with the massive flooding of migrants.
The second attack came in the form of ‘One Unit Scheme’ in 1955 which combined all the West Pakistani provinces under One Unit. An authoritarian move emerging from the partnership of the bureaucratic and feudal elite was a clear manifestation of the myopic scheme, put in place to make the country more centralized, technocratic and apolitical. Shifting of the capital from Karachi to Islamabad occurred during the same autocratic rule. Opposition to the scheme came from all three minority provincial assemblies and East Pakistan where a unanimous legislation was passed demanding complete autonomy of the provinces.
The oppression under ‘One Unit’ galvanised ethnic politics in all the minority provinces and gave birth to several ethnic parties. Sindh remained a witness to the violence which was rampant in the province for several years, either emanating from the state’s egregious efforts to impose Urdu or the Sindhi-Mohajir rivalry. The prolonged agitation against the One Unit scheme during Ayub’s dictatorship finally led to disintegration of the scheme, and restoration of provinces in its original form under Yahya’s transitory regime in the 1970.
The state’s rigid attitude did not lessen even with the arrival of the first fully democratic government of Zulifiqar Ali Bhutto. The crystallization of Sindhi nationalism happened during Bhutto’s rule with increased job opportunities and the formation of the disputed quota system, which according to Muhajirs decreased their employment opportunities. Bhutto’s rule was a period dominated by a continuous political rivalry between the centre and the provinces. . The confrontation between National Awamy Party (NAP) in Balochistan and Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) was dominated by power politics and personal interests.
Despite the presence of a tripartite accord between PPP-NAP-JUI, Bhutto’s unabating interference in the internal politics of provinces made the agreement unsustainable. The ban on NAP in 1975 and dismissal of the provincial government because of their ” failure” to prevent tribal insurgency was the termination of a working relationship. A small episode rose in the dominant Punjab as well where after an intra-party squabble ,Mustafa Khar and Hanif Ramay, the two leading men of PPP came together against Bhutto in ‘ Save Punjab Movement’ of October 1975.
The whole purpose of going back to history was to give an idea about the stifling attitude of the state towards identity politics and provincial autonomy before the18thAmendment. Although it would still be a little early and far-fetched to say that the 18thAmendment managed to attain what it pledged 8 years ago, it was still certainly a great leap forward towards making Pakistan a consociational federation which would put an end to one-province-dominates-all situation and would save us from another debacle like East Pakistan by carefully managing the heterogeneity of Pakistan. The current PTI government needs to get off the high horse of authoritarianism and all talk about undoing or altering the Amendment should rather be focused towards removing the difficulties obstructing the complete implementation of amendment. This would include ending the divisions purposely created to evade the devolution of power, making the Council of Common Interests (CCI) play a mediating role between the provinces and the centre and actively pursuing the task of regional equality and amelioration of poverty in the deprived regions and listening to the grievances of the minorities within minoritiesof theSeraiki and Hindko speaking regions.
The writer is a freelance journalist
Published in Daily Times, January 3rd 2019